There are roughly 96,000 people on the transplant list for kidneys in the United States. About 4,500 of them will die waiting for a match this year.
Kidney disease is on the rise in the nation. For patients nearing kidney failure, transplants are the best and often only methods of treatment. However, the rate of donations, from both living and deceased donors, has remained relatively unchanged in the last decade.
So how can the U.S. meet the demand for donors? Give people a couple thousand dollars in exchange for their kidneys, suggests a study published last week in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, which focuses on kidney-disease research and patient care.
The idea goes like this: Pay living kidney donors $10,000. The monetary incentive would then increase the number of transplants by 5 percent, which the researchers call a “very conservative estimate.” More transplants would mean better patient outcomes. And hospitals and insurance companies would save money on dialysis and other care for now-healthier patients.
Last year, 16,812 kidney transplants were performed in the U.S. Of these, 5,769 came from living donors. A 5 percent increase, applied to these figures, would add about 288 kidney donations a year.
In the study, the researchers used average costs of dialysis and similar care, transplantation and survival rates, and time spent on transplant lists to compare a payment program with typical organ-donation systems. Some of the figures and databases were Canadian, but the researchers say the results hold for the U.S. A hypothetical government or third-party-administered program that paid donors, they argue, would be less costly and more effective than the current American system, which is managed by UNOS, a private, nonprofit organization.
In the U.S., it is illegal for “any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation,” under the National Organ Transplant Act. While living donors don’t get paid for their kidneys, Medicare or private health insurance does cover the process.
Proponents of legalizing payment for organs point to the generally accepted donation of hair, blood, sperm, and eggs. While these have minimal medical risk for the donor, “it is accepted that they are sold for financial gain,” wrote surgeon Amy Friedman in a 2006 study in favor of legalizing payments for living organ donations. Many of these donations come from economically disadvantaged populations, and a hypothetical program that exchanges money for organs runs the same risk of exploiting the most needy.
There have been attempts to at least somewhat compensate living donors for their kidneys. In 2002, a former Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Bill Frist, R-Tenn., introduced legislation that would have provided reimbursement for travel expenses for living donors. In 2009, the National Kidney Foundation, a New-York based nonprofit, recommended covering funeral expenses for families who donate a relative’s organs. For some, however, even picking up the tab for travel and funeral expenses is going too far, nearing bribery. “You’re edging towards financial incentives rather than compensation,” one bioethicist told USA Today in 2009.
What We're Following See More »
"After hours of private talks," Debbie Wasserman Schultz agreed to step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee after the convention ends. In the wake of the convention intrigue, Hillary Clinton announced she's making Wasserman Schultz "the honorary chair of her campaign's 50-state program."
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz "will not have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this week," and is under increasing pressure to resign. The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge as "permanent chair of the convention." At issue: internal DNC emails leaked by Wikileaks that show how "the DNC favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by questioning his religion."
- A Rasmussen Reports poll shows Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton, 43%-42%, the fourth week in a row he's led the poll (one of the few poll in which he's led consistently of late).
- A Reuters/Ipsos survey shows Clinton leading 40%-36%. In a four-way race, she maintains her four-point lead, 39%-35%, with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein pulling 7% and 3%, respectively.
- And the LA Times/USC daily tracking poll shows a dead heat, with Trump ahead by about half a percentage point.
In an election between two candidates around 70 years of age, millennials strongly prefer one over the other. Hillary Clinton has a 47%-30% edge among votes 18 to 29. She also leads 46%-36% among voters aged 30 to 44.