DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 5 in the Library of the Member’S Area At

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 5 in the Library of the Member’S Area At Chapter 2 The Recipient Chapter 2 – The Recipient Change record Date Author Version Change reference 05-03-2020 A. Jens 7 2.1.7 Requirements for the request or discontinuation of a transplantation program 22-05-2019 J. de Boer 6.1 Addition P-ET 01.16 (2.1.1) 29-01-2019 U. Samuel 6.0 Adjustments due to GDPR in 2.1.2, 2.1.5.3.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.11.7 16-08-2018 J. de Boer 5.1 Reference International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR) removed (contract terminated) 15-06-2017 C.M. Tieken 5.0 Adjustment of table 2.1.4.7 25-03-2013 C.M. Tieken 4.0 Adjustment non-resident recipients 24.07.2013 A. Verweij 3.2 Membership Hungary 12.04.2013 J. de Boer 3.1 Erratum waiting time kidney transplant candidates after removal 05-03-2013 C.M. Tieken 3.0 Textual adjustments 13-09-2012 C.M. Tieken 2.1 Text added page 2 20-07-2012 C.M. Tieken 2.0 2.1.5.5 intestine added 18-12-2009 C.M. Tieken 1.0 2.1.5 non residents The Eurotransplant Manual contains the rules and regulations for the implementation and specification of national legislation and national guidelines for waiting list management, organ procurement and allocation. It has been prepared with the best of knowledge and the utmost care. In case of discrepancies between the content of this manual and national binding provisions, the following applies: - Insofar, as provisions about the acceptance of organ recipients to the waiting list are concerned, this manual has only an informative character. Only the national provisions which are applicable for the transplant centers are relevant and legally binding. - For the allocation of organs only the national provisions are legally binding. The display of the allocation provisions in this Manual are based on these legally binding national provisions. As far as necessary, they have been specified by Eurotransplant in this Manual. Deviations from such specifying Eurotransplant provisions cannot be considered as a breach of the national provisions as long as the latter are not violated. Eurotransplant cannot be held liable for a potentially wrongful description in this Manual of procedures, in connection with the organ allocation, as long as the actual allocation follows national provisions. This Manual is property of Eurotransplant. Reproduction of the Manual, in whole or part, is only permitted with prior permission of Eurotransplant. Eurotransplant Manual © – version 7 / March 5, 2020 – subject to change Page 2 of 26 Chapter 2 – The Recipient Chapter 2 – The Recipient Table of contents 2.1 POST-MORTEM ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION ............................................ 6 2.1.1 Mandatory prospective listing ............................................................................................. 6 2.1.1.1 Deviant national agreements .............................................................................................. 6 2.1.1.1.1 Germany ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1.2 Organ specific requirements ............................................................................................... 6 2.1.1.2.1 Pancreas ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Registration procedure ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2.1 Registration outside office hours ......................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Waiting list management ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3.1 Waiting list urgency code .................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3.1.1 High Urgent (HU)/Special Urgency (SU) ..................................................................... 8 2.1.3.2 Listing for a multi-organ transplantation .............................................................................. 8 2.1.3.2.1 Approved Combined Organ (ACO) ............................................................................. 8 2.1.3.3 ENIS donor profile ............................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3.3.1 Center-specific donor profile ....................................................................................... 8 2.1.3.3.2 Recipient-specific donor profile ................................................................................... 9 2.1.3.4 Clinical data ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3.5 Death on the waiting list ...................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3.6 Removal from the waiting list .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.3.7 Transplant registration ........................................................................................................ 9 2.1.3.8 Registration by ET duty desk .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.3.9 Transfer of a patient .......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3.10 Registration for a re-transplant and after removal ........................................................ 10 2.1.4 Financial aspects ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.4.1 First Transplantation ......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4.2 Re-transplantation ............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.4.3 After removal ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4.4 Multi-organ transplantation ................................................................................................ 10 2.1.4.5 Consecutive transplantation with a different organ ........................................................... 10 2.1.4.6 Living donor organ transplantation .................................................................................... 11 2.1.4.7 Deviant national agreements ............................................................................................ 11 2.1.5 Non-resident recipients ...................................................................................................... 11 2.1.5.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.5.2 Declaration of Istanbul; ..................................................................................................... 12 Definitions of ‘Travel for Transplantation’, ‘Transplant Tourism’ ....................................................... 12 and ‘Organ trafficking’ ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5.3 ET Non-resident policy ...................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5.3.1 Deceased donors ...................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5.3.2 Living donors ............................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5.4 Background information nationality, residency and citizen ............................................... 13 2.1.5.4.1 Nationality .................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5.4.2 Residency .................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5.4.3 Citizen and citizenship .............................................................................................. 14 2.1.5.5 Definition of ‘ET national’, ‘ET resident’ and ‘Non-ET resident’ ........................................ 14 2.1.5.5.1 ET national: ............................................................................................................... 14 2.1.5.5.2 ET residents: ............................................................................................................. 14 2.1.5.5.3 Non-ET residents: ..................................................................................................... 15 2.1.5.5.4 Deviant national regulations ...................................................................................... 15 2.1.5.6 Monitoring general information .......................................................................................... 15 2.1.5.7 Data collection and verification of residency status .......................................................... 16 Eurotransplant Manual © – version 7 / March 5, 2020 – subject to change Page 3 of 26 Chapter 2 – The Recipient 2.1.6 The HIV positive recipient .................................................................................................. 16 2.1.7 Requirements for the request or discontinuation of a transplantation program ......... 17 2.1.8 Registration in more than one transplant center ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Economics and Ethics of Alternative Cadaveric Organ Procurement Policies
    The Economics and Ethics of Alternative Cadaveric Organ Procurement Policies Roger D. Blairt David L. Kasermantt Under the National Organ TransplantAct of 1984, organsuppliers-usually the famillies of critically injured accident victims-are not allowed to receive compensation in exchange for granting permission to remove the organs of their deceased relatives. This organ procurement regime is therefore driven solely by potential donors' altruism. Due to the growing nationwide shortage of transplantableorgans, the altruisticsystem has begun to draw considerable criticism. Focussing on the transplantationof kidneys, this Article challenges the theoreticaland economic underpinningsof the altruisticsystem by compar- ing it to two alternative policies: a market system that allows demand and supply to equilibrate at a positive price, and a system which transfers property rights in cadavericorgans from potential donors to recipients.Blair and Kaser- man subject these alternative policies to economic and ethical scrutiny, and conclude that the market system would not only generate the largest number of transplantablekidneys, but would also provide the greatest gain in overall social welfare. Introduction ......................................... 404 1. The Kidney Shortage - Magnitude, Causes, and Consequences .... 407 A. Size of the Shortage ............................... 408 B. Causes of the IncreasingShortage .................... 408 C. Consequences of the Shortage ........................ 410 II. The Current System: Altruism .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Organ Procurement in Israel: Lessons for South Africa
    RESEARCH Organ procurement in Israel: Lessons for South Africa M Slabbert,1 BA (Hons) HED, B Proc, LLB, LLD; B Venter,2 LLB, LLM 1 Department of Jurisprudence, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa 2 Faculty of Law, Midrand Graduate Institute, Midrand, South Africa Corresponding author: B Venter ([email protected]) Modern medicine makes it possible to transplant not only kidneys but any solid organs from one human body to another. Although it is the ideal to harvest organs from a brain-dead person, a kidney or a part of the liver or lung can be transplanted from a living donor to a patient. The majority of countries where organ transplants are performed have a dire need for transplantable organs as the current systems of organ procurement are not obtaining a sufficient amount of transplantable organs. Today’s cruel reality is that many patients are dying while waiting for a transplant. Few nations are able to meet the organ demand through their domestic transplant systems and there is a constant debate about ethical ways of procuring organs for transplantation purposes. This article will scrutinise the Israeli system of organ procurement and it will be compared with the current system of organ donation in South Africa (SA) in order to indicate whether SA could possibly, or should, follow the example of Israel to improve its acute donor organ shortage. S Afr J BL 2015;8(2):44-47. DOI:10.7196/SAJBL.444 Since the first kidney transplant a new chance of life Declaration does not provide explicit support for donor incentives.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the First Kidney Transplantation
    165+3 14 mm "Service to society is the rent we pay for living on this planet" The History of the Joseph E. Murray, 1990 Nobel-laureate who performed the first long-term functioning kidney transplantation in the world First Kidney "The pioneers sacrificed their scientific life to convince the medical society that this will become sooner or later a successful procedure… – …it is a feeling – now I am Transplantation going to overdo - like taking part in creation...” András Németh, who performed the first – a European Overview Hungarian renal transplantation in 1962 E d i t e d b y : "Professor Langer contributes an outstanding “service” to the field by a detailed Robert Langer recording of the history of kidney transplantation as developed throughout Europe. The authoritative information is assembled country by country by a generation of transplant professionals who knew the work of their pioneer predecessors. The accounting as compiled by Professor Langer becomes an essential and exceptional reference document that conveys the “service to society” that kidney transplantation has provided for all mankind and that Dr. Murray urged be done.” Francis L. Delmonico, M.D. Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital Past President The Transplantation Society and the Organ Procurement Transplant Network (UNOS) Chair, WHO Task Force Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation The History of the First Kidney Transplantation – a European Overview European a – Transplantation Kidney First the of History The ISBN 978-963-331-476-0 Robert Langer 9 789633 314760 The History of the First Kidney Transplantation – a European Overview Edited by: Robert Langer SemmelweisPublishers www.semmelweiskiado.hu Budapest, 2019 © Semmelweis Press and Multimedia Studio Budapest, 2019 eISBN 978-963-331-473-9 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletteralumni News of the Newyork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Department of Surgery Volume 13, Number 1 Summer 2010
    NEWSLETTERAlumni News of the NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Department of Surgery Volume 13, Number 1 Summer 2010 CUMC 2007-2009 Transplant Activity Profile* Activity Kidney Liver Heart Lung Pancreas Baseline list at year start 694 274 174 136 24 Deceased donor transplant 123 124 93 57 11 Living donor transplant 138 17 — 0 — Transplant rate from list 33% 50% 51% 57% 35% Mortality rate while on list 9% 9% 9% 15% 0% New listings 411 217 144 68 23 Wait list at year finish 735 305 204 53 36 2007-June 2008 Percent 1-Year Survival No % No % No % No % No % Adult grafts 610 91 279 86 169 84 123 89 6 100 Adult patients 517 96 262 88 159 84 116 91 5 100 Pediatric grafts 13 100 38 86 51 91 3 100 0 — Pediatric patients 11 100 34 97 47 90 2 100 0 — Summary Data Total 2009 living donor transplants 155 (89% Kidney) Total 2009 deceased donor transplants 408 (30% Kidney, 30% Liver) 2007-June 2008 adult 1-year patient survival range 84% Heart to 100% Pancreas 2007-June 2008 pediatric 1-year patient survival range 90% Heart to 100% Kidney or lung *Health Resource and Service Administration’s Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Ed Note. The figure shows the US waiting list for whole organs which will only be partially fulfilled by some 8,000 deceased donors, along with 6,600 living donors, who will provide 28,000 to 29,000 organs in 2010. The Medical Center’s role in this process is summarized in the table, and the articles that follow my note expand on this incredible short fall and its potential solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Incentivizing Organ Donor Registrations with Organ Allocation Priority
    HEALTH ECONOMICS Health Econ. (2016) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/hec.3328 INCENTIVIZING ORGAN DONOR REGISTRATIONS WITH ORGAN ALLOCATION PRIORITY AVRAHAM STOLERa,*, JUDD B. KESSLERb, TAMAR ASHKENAZIc, ALVIN E. ROTHd and JACOB LAVEEe aDepartment of Economics, DePaul University and Coherent Economics, Highland Park, IL, USA bThe Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA cIsraeli National Transplant Center, Tel Aviv, Israel dDepartment of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA eTel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine and the Heart Transplantation Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel ABSTRACT How donor organs are allocated for transplant can affect their scarcity. In 2008, Israel’s Parliament passed an Organ Transplantation Law granting priority on organ donor waiting lists to individuals who had previously registered as organ donors. Beginning in No- vember 2010, public awareness campaigns advertised the priority policy to the public. Since April 2012, priority has been added to the routine medical criteria in organ allocation decisions. We evaluate the introduction of priority for registered organ donors using Israeli data on organ donor registration from 1992 to 2013. We find that registrations increased when information about the priority law was made widely available. We find an even larger increase in registration rates in the 2 months leading up to a program dead- line, after which priority would only be granted with a 3-year delay. We also find that the registration rate responds positively to public awareness campaigns, to the ease of registration (i.e. allowing for registering online and by phone) and to an election drive that included placing registration opportunities in central voting locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperating Saves Lives Start Contents
    Annual Report 2019 Cooperating saves lives start contents Contents Foreword 1. The Eurotransplant community 2. Eurotransplant: donation, allocation, transplantation and waiting lists This document is optimized for Acrobat Reader for best viewing 3. Report of the Board and the central office experience. 4. Histocompatibility Testing Download Acrobat Reader 5. Reporting of non-resident transplants in Eurotransplant 6. Transplant programs and their delegates in 2019 A high resolution version of this document is also available. 7. Scientific output in 2019 Download high resolution pdf 8. Eurotransplant personnel related statistics 9. Abbreviated financial statements All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system List of abbreviations or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or elsewise, without prior permission of Eurotransplant. For permissions, please contact: [email protected] start contents Foreword Dear reader, We are proud to offer you the 2019, digital edition of the International organ exchange Eurotransplant Annual Report. In this environmentally In 2019, 6981 organs from 2042 deceased donors were friendly, digital report you can easily browse via the used for transplantation for patients on the waiting top menu. Weblinks are added to facilitate in finding list of Eurotransplant. This decrease of the number of more specific information on relevant websites. The reported donors is 5,5% compared to 2018 (2159). report provides an overview of the key statistics on 21.5% of organs were exchanged cross-border between organ donation, allocation and transplantation in all the Eurotransplant member states. Thanks to this Eurotransplant countries. international exchange, a suitable donor organ could be You can also read in the report activities within found for many patients in the different Eurotransplant Eurotransplant that took place, decisions that were member states.
    [Show full text]
  • S. 518 [Report No
    II Calendar No. 773 108TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 518 [Report No. 108–387] To increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research, to provide better coordination of Federal efforts and information on islet cell transplan- tation, and to collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 5, 2003 Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. MILLER, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. LOTT, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mrs. LIN- COLN, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. SMITH, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. REED, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. BOND, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. KERRY, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. DODD, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. FEIN- GOLD, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BURNS, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. TALENT, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. DEWINE, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. GRAHAM of Florida, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. SARBANES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions OCTOBER 7, 2004 Reported by Mr. GREGG, with an amendment [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] A BILL To increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research, 2 to provide better coordination of Federal efforts and infomation on islet cell transplantation, and to collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy.
    [Show full text]
  • Organ Procurement Processes in the Operating Room
    Volume 33 Issue 2 Article 2 4-30-2020 Organ Procurement Processes in the Operating Room: The Effects of an Educational Session on Levels of Confidence and Understanding in Operating Room Registered Nurses and Surgical Technologists Ann Ross University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, [email protected] Janet Reilly University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, [email protected] Emily Halla Hospital Sisters Health System (HSHS) St Vincent's Hospital, Clinical Educator–Surgical Services, Green Bay, Wisconsin, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.journal.acorn.org.au/jpn Kathryn Anderson Univ Persityart of of the Wisconsin–Or Perioperative,gan Oper andating Tissue Room and and Donation, Surgical Hospital Nursing De Commonsvelopment,, and Madison, the Sur gerWisconsiny Commons, [email protected] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Ross, Ann; Reilly, Janet; Halla, Emily; and Anderson, Kathryn (2020) "Organ Procurement Processes in the Operating Room: The Effects of an Educational Session on Levels of Confidence and Understanding in Operating Room Registered Nurses and Surgical Technologists," Journal of Perioperative Nursing: Vol. 33 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1072 https://www.journal.acorn.org.au/jpn/vol33/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Journal of Perioperative Nursing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Perioperative Nursing by an authorized editor of Journal of Perioperative
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Trend Over Time of High-Urgency Liver Transplantation Requests in Italy in the 4-Year Period 2014-2017
    Analysis of the Trend Over Time of High-Urgency Liver Transplantation Requests in Italy in the 4-Year Period 2014-2017 S. Trapani*, F. Puoti, V. Morabito, D. Peritore, P. Fiaschetti, A. Oliveti, M. Caprio, L. Masiero, L. Rizzato, L. Lombardini, A. Nanni Costa, and M. Cardillo Italian National Transplant Center, Italian Institute of Health, Rome, Italy ABSTRACT Background. The national protocol for the handling of high-urgency (HU) liver organ procurement for transplant is administered by the Italian National Transplant Center. In recent years, we have witnessed a change in requests to access the program. We have therefore evaluated their temporal trend, the need to change the access criteria, the percentage of transplants performed, the time of request satisfaction, and the follow-up. Methods. We analyzed all the liver requests for the HU program received during the 4-year period of 2014 to 2017 for adult recipients (18 years of age): all the variables linked to the recipient or to the donor and the organ transplants are registered in the Informative Transplant System as established by the law 91/99. In addition, intention to treat (ITT) survival rates were compared among 4 different groups: (1) patients on standard waiting lists vs (2) patients on urgency waiting lists, and (3) patients with a history of transplant in urgency vs (4) patients with a history of transplant not in urgency. Results. Out of the 370 requests included in the study, 291 (78.7%) were satisfied with liver transplantation. Seventy-nine requests (21.3%) have not been processed, but if we consider only the real failures, this percentage falls to 13.1% and the percentage of satisfied requests rises to 86.9%.
    [Show full text]
  • Spain, France and Italy Are to Exchange Organs for Donation Chains
    Translation of an article published in the Spanish newspaper ABC on 10 October 2012 O.J.D.: 201504 Date: 10/10/2012 E.G.M.: 641000 Section: SOCIETY Pages: 38, 39 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what happened in Spain’s first ‘crossover’ transplant [For diagram see original article] Altruistic donor The chain started with the kidney donation from a ‘good Samaritan’ going to a recipient in a couple. The wife of the first recipient donated her kidney to a sick person in a second couple. The wife of the second recipient donated her kidney to a third patient on the waiting list. On the waiting list The final recipient, selected using medical criteria, was on the waiting list to receive a kidney from a deceased donor for three years. Spain, France and Italy are to exchange organs for donation chains ► The creation of this type of ‘common area’ in southern Europe will increase the chances of finding a donor match CRISTINA GARRIDO BRUSSELS | Stronger together. Although there are many things on which we find it difficult to agree, this time the strategy was clear. Spain, France and Italy have signed the Southern Europe Transplant Alliance to promote their successful donation and transplant system – which is public, coordinated and directly answerable to the Ministries of Health, as compared to the private models of central and northern Europe – to the international bodies. ‘We (Spain, France and Italy) decided that we had to do something together because we have similar philosophies, ethical criteria and structures and we could not each go our own way given how things are in the northern countries’, explained Dr Rafael Matesanz, Director of the Spanish National Transplant Organisation, at the seminar on donations and transplants organised by the European Commission in Brussels yesterday.
    [Show full text]
  • Value of Donor–Specific Anti–HLA Antibody Monitoring And
    CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org Value of Donor–Specific Anti–HLA Antibody Monitoring and Characterization for Risk Stratification of Kidney Allograft Loss † †‡ | Denis Viglietti,* Alexandre Loupy, Dewi Vernerey,§ Carol Bentlejewski, Clément Gosset,¶ † † †‡ Olivier Aubert, Jean-Paul Duong van Huyen,** Xavier Jouven, Christophe Legendre, † | † Denis Glotz,* Adriana Zeevi, and Carmen Lefaucheur* Departments of *Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation and ¶Pathology, Saint Louis Hospital and Departments of ‡Kidney Transplantation and **Pathology, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; †Paris Translational Research Center for Organ Transplantation, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, UMR-S970, Paris, France; §Methodology Unit (EA 3181) CHRU de Besançon, France; and |University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ABSTRACT The diagnosis system for allograft loss lacks accurate individual risk stratification on the basis of donor– specific anti–HLA antibody (anti-HLA DSA) characterization. We investigated whether systematic moni- toring of DSA with extensive characterization increases performance in predicting kidney allograft loss. This prospective study included 851 kidney recipients transplanted between 2008 and 2010 who were systematically screened for DSA at transplant, 1 and 2 years post-transplant, and the time of post– transplant clinical events. We assessed DSA characteristics and performed systematic allograft biopsies at the time of post–transplant serum evaluation. At transplant, 110 (12.9%) patients had DSAs; post- transplant screening identified 186 (21.9%) DSA-positive patients. Post–transplant DSA monitoring im- proved the prediction of allograft loss when added to a model that included traditional determinants of allograft loss (increase in c statisticfrom0.67;95%confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62 to 0.73 to 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.77).
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing the Number of Kidney Transplants to Treat End Stage Renal Disease
    Increasing the Number of Kidney Transplants to Treat End Stage Renal Disease The Council of Economic Advisers January 2021 September 29, 2017 Executive Summary Chronic Kidney Disease affects nearly 15 percent of the adult population in the United States and is the 9th leading cause of death. The most advanced form of Chronic Kidney Disease is End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), in which the kidneys no longer function appropriately, thereby requiring the patient to undergo renal replacement therapy in order to live. Currently there are nearly 100,000 patients waiting for a kidney, and the number of transplants performed every year (20,000) is far less than the number of new ESRD cases every year (125,000). The market for transplantable organs is unique since ethical concerns effectively set their price at zero. As a result, there is a substantial excess demand and long queues for transplantable organs such as kidneys. In July 2019, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at improving the care of patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published final rules that attempt to streamline the renal care system by removing regulatory barriers, increasing oversight of Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs), and encouraging living donations.1 HHS estimates that their changes to the OPO system alone could generate up to 4,500 additional kidney transplants per year by 20262 and HHS has set a goal of doubling the number of kidneys available for transplantation by 2030. CEA estimates that if the United States just matched Spain’s best in the world rate of deceased donor kidney transplants on a per million population (pmp) basis—an increase of roughly 7,300—and increased the number of living donors by 900, then these additional transplants would generate societal benefits with a net present value of $16 billion per year.
    [Show full text]