The following is from the January 8, 2006, edition of
The
Cherry Hill (NJ) Post Courier.
Organ donation rules raise ethical concerns
By Shawn Rhea
Courier Post Health Writer
Here's an interesting query to add to life's big
book of ethical questions: Would you donate your time and resources to
an organization or cause that if you were ever in need of its services
would deny you assistance?
Well, a large percentage of organ donors each
year make a similar yet even more glaringly inequitable sacrifice,
according to research in the Journal of American College of
Cardiology.
Studying a national organ donation database,
ethicists and cardiologists estimated 23 percent of donors who made
their organs available for transplantation upon death were uninsured.
The vast majority of those donors would not have been eligible to
receive an organ, however, should they have needed one while alive.
That's because under federal law a potential recipient must show the
ability to pay for surgery, life-long follow-up care and
anti-rejection medicines before he or she can be placed on the United
Network of Organ Sharing's national wait list.
Unfortunately, financing an organ transplant
out-of-pocket is prohibitive for all but the wealthiest Americans. The
estimated costs for a heart transplant during the first post-operative
year is $478,900, according to the health-care consulting firm
Milliman USA. Liver transplant patients typically incur about $393,000
in expenses during the first year.
Since hospitals nationwide use the UNOS list to
determine who's next to receive an organ, not being placed on it means
almost certain death for individuals who, short of financial ability,
meet every other requirement. And since minorities and the working
poor are most likely among the ranks of the uninsured, such an
exclusion undercuts efforts to make organ donation a process free of
socio-economic and racial bias, according to Tom Mayo, a Southern
Methodist University bioethicist and one of the study's authors.
"I think health-care disparities work out along
socio-economic and racial lines in lots of different ways that we're
just now starting to discover," said Mayo.
In their study, Mayo and other researchers
advocate for a national study that would assess and document the
number of Americans who each year are denied heart transplant
eligibility simply on the grounds of economic status. "One of the
hardest parts of our study was estimating what that number is, and
before Congress can be moved (to address organ donation disparity) we
need the data," Mayo explained.
The researchers also recommended legislators
consider extending Medicare coverage to end stage heart failure
patients who physically qualify for a transplant, but are unable to
pay for it through insurance or self-financing measures. Legislators
already have a model to follow. Currently, Medicare will cover the
costs for kidney transplant candidates who are unable to afford
surgery and follow-up care.
A bigger issue
While the study focused on heart transplants, the
issue is "bigger than hearts," said Mayo.
Under-insured and uninsured Americans who are in
need of livers, lungs or other life-saving organs are also at risk for
being denied transplant eligibility. Mayo acknowledged that expecting
the government to single-handedly foot the bill for organ transplants
is unrealistic. The cardiac study estimated care for just 330 heart
transplant patients would cost Medicare $190 million over the first
five years. That cost would grow exponentially as more kinds of
transplants were added to government-financed care.
A more realistic option would draw upon a pool of
financial and service resources provided by hospitals, pharmaceutical
companies, medical professionals and state and federal government.
Providing such care for financially challenged patients who, had
they have ended up on the other side of the equation, might well
have donated a life-saving gift is not only the fair thing to do,
but also the moral thing to do.
srhea@courierpostonline.com
Health reporter Shawn Rhea's column appears Sundays.