Transplant Industry Hypocrisy

[NDXUFan]

I am curious, should donors be paid?  In a nutshell, in a kidney transplant, donors assume the biggest risk of anyone in the transplant process.  Yet, the donor is not compensated for taking that large risk.  Morever, everyone else in the transplant chain is very well compensated, to say the least.  Is it hypocrisy for the transplant industry to act as a financial commodity, while forbidding the donor who is taking a major risk to do the same? 

[Whamo]

Sure it is.  They feed the greed.

[jeannea]

No. Just because society wants us to pander to our most base instincts and reward everyone's greed doesn't mean we have to.

[MooseMom]

NDXUFan, how do you define "the transplant industry"?

[jeannea]

Another thought. The majority of donors are not assuming any risk. They're already dead. MooseMom has a good question about who is the transplant industry. I think that well trained experienced doctors deserve a decent income. Most of them are not rich just better off than some of us. The good ones end up putting in a lot of hours for that income. The nurses are paid according to how that hospital pays nurses with their level of education and experience. Social workers and nutritionists are almost never well paid. The Gift of Life associations are non-profit with only a few employees.

Most living donors do it because they really want to. They don't expect compensation.

[Zach]

While the organizations which coordinate the cadaver organ donation, also known as Organ Procurement Organizations (OPO) are usually not-for-profit, public charities, their leadership receives pretty good salaries.

In Los Angeles, it's OneLegacy.

Annual salaries:
Thomas Mone, CEO & EVP:  $631,964.
Chowdary Garimella, COO & VP Operations:  $487,087.
Davis Grafty, CFO & VP Finance: $290,498.

The organization has a fund balance (profit over time) of over $30,000,000.
Investment income:  $363,682.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/953/138/2011-953138799-08aab7de-9.pdf

[jeannea]

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is. The officers are being paid market value for their work. I can't tell how long it took to have that much of a fund balance. Do you want them to give some cash to everyone on dialysis in the greater Los Angeles area? There must be thousands of patients.

[ChrisEtc]

I've heard Iran pays for kidney donation.  It's a lot cheaper than paying for years of dialysis.

[okarol]

Thanks for that info Zach, i had not seen it before.

NDXUFan - you may want to search a little here on the forum - paying for kidneys has been discussed quite a bit in other threads. 

[KarenInWA]

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is. The officers are being paid market value for their work. I can't tell how long it took to have that much of a fund balance. Do you want them to give some cash to everyone on dialysis in the greater Los Angeles area? There must be thousands of patients.

I don't think giving cash to dialysis patients is going to help increase the pool of donors - living or deceased. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. However, I see nothing wrong with compensating a donor for their time - like Australia's health system is now doing. I also don't see a problem with some of that UNOS money going to pay for deceased donor's funeral services. To me, that is not greed, but a fair compensation for a major gift/event. I would only support it if Medicare and/or private insurance covered that payment. I do not think it should be up to the individual organ transplant recipient.

KarenInWA

[Simon Dog]

The hipocrisy is claiming that paying donors would be "unfair" since not everyone could afford to pay a donor, however, the wallet biopsy is the most critical component of the workup process.

[BattleScars]

There's a real easy solution to solve this problem. Donors should be compensated, especially when they have to take time off work to heal and the pain they go through, not to mention the risks of surgery. The ethical issue is only kidney patients that have money would have an unfair advantage. How you get around that is have our government pay donors. Set a flat fee for their kidney, say $50,000. Keep patients on a list and when a donor clears all the medical hurdles and donates his/her kidney they will receive the check. Everyone wins because that list is going to be a lot shorter and the government will save millions in the long run because dialysis is much more costly than kidney transplantation. Buying and selling organs privately will still be illegal. I mean if we can sell our plasma and blood then why can't a person sell his or her kidney?? Thousands of lives will be saved.

[Zach]

.

[Zach]

While the organizations which coordinate the cadaver organ donation, also known as Organ Procurement Organizations (OPO) are usually not-for-profit, public charities, their leadership receives pretty good salaries.

In Los Angeles, it's OneLegacy.

Annual salaries:
Thomas Mone, CEO & EVP:  $631,964.
Chowdary Garimella, COO & VP Operations:  $487,087.
Davis Grafty, CFO & VP Finance: $290,498.

The organization has a fund balance (profit over time) of over $30,000,000.
Investment income:  $363,682.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/953/138/2011-953138799-08aab7de-9.pdf

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is. The officers are being paid market value for their work. I can't tell how long it took to have that much of a fund balance. Do you want them to give some cash to everyone on dialysis in the greater Los Angeles area? There must be thousands of patients.

Think of all the research related to organ transplant 30 million dollars can go in to?
How about a better public education program to increase donations?

And this is just one of 58 OPOs throughout the U.S. and its territories.
How much money are they hoarding?

I'm not sure this is a perfect example of "regulatory capture" but it is wrong in any case.

 

[Simon Dog]

I don't think giving cash to dialysis patients is going to help increase the pool of donors - living or deceased.

Assuming you meant "paying cash to donors, living or dead", your statement denies the realities of supply and demand.

[Rerun]

Yes!  Donors should be paid.

 My  for the hundredth time.

     

[Simon Dog]

There are really two separate questions that are getting mexed together:

1. Should donors be paid?

2. Should payment be "market based", allowing those who can pay preferential access to organs, or should we continue with a variety of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability".

[Dman73]

First and foremost we need to start to provide lifelong coverage for immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplant because it is a waste loosing a kidney after the 3 year cutoff date creating additional expense for medicare and is dangerous for the patient. 

[MooseMom]

I wonder just how many kidney patients would be able to pay for a new kidney.  ESRD can ruin you financially.

[MooseMom]

We need to start to provide lifelong coverage for immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplant because it is a waste loosing a kidney after the 3 year cutoff date creating additional expense for medicare and is dangerous for the patient.

As you probably know, several congresspeople are working on that bill.  I don't know where it stands at the moment, though.

[KarenInWA]

I wonder just how many kidney patients would be able to pay for a new kidney.  ESRD can ruin you financially.

I still say have it be a line item on the bill that insurance and/or medicare pays. As for the amount, that needs to be negotiated, but once it's set, it's set. The same, across the board, no matter who/what is paying - as long as it's a 3rd party.

KarenInWA

[NDXUFan]

NDXUFan, how do you define "the transplant industry"?

Individuals in the medical field who derive a financial gain from transplants.

[NDXUFan]

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is. The officers are being paid market value for their work. I can't tell how long it took to have that much of a fund balance. Do you want them to give some cash to everyone on dialysis in the greater Los Angeles area? There must be thousands of patients.

Market value means is what the market thinks they are worth to the group or organization.

[NDXUFan]

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is. The officers are being paid market value for their work. I can't tell how long it took to have that much of a fund balance. Do you want them to give some cash to everyone on dialysis in the greater Los Angeles area? There must be thousands of patients.

I don't think giving cash to dialysis patients is going to help increase the pool of donors - living or deceased. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. However, I see nothing wrong with compensating a donor for their time - like Australia's health system is now doing. I also don't see a problem with some of that UNOS money going to pay for deceased donor's funeral services. To me, that is not greed, but a fair compensation for a major gift/event. I would only support it if Medicare and/or private insurance covered that payment. I do not think it should be up to the individual organ transplant recipient.


So, you are asserting that third party decision makers should be making decisions that will not effective their basic existence in life?
KarenInWA

[NDXUFan]

The hipocrisy is claiming that paying donors would be "unfair" since not everyone could afford to pay a donor, however, the wallet biopsy is the most critical component of the workup process.

Exactly.