Gettin'Organ-ized
Eric Kaplan
Issue date: 4/15/08 Section: Observations
I had the good fortune of attending the Spring Clinical Meeting for the National Kidney Foundation in Texas last week.
I had an amazing time; people from all over the country came to a convention center to talk about organ donation and kidney health.
I met doctors, pharmaceutical sales reps, nurses, teachers, lawyers, organ recipients, organ donors, and family members of deceased donors.
It was heartwarming to hear stories about saved lives and the story of hope; that when all else seems to have failed, the gift of life from another human being gave someone another few decades to live.
I remember a few tearful moments hearing about someone's struggle with kidney disease, and their story of waiting on a list for an organ; and that a good hearted woman who had lost her husband in a car accident, donated his organs to save other people.
Even in death, there is life.
We discussed a lot of issues, including safety, advocacy, patients rights, and surgery. But most important, I feel, was the issue of medication.
Each year, an average of 13% of people who have received organs lose them because they are unable to afford medication. The generous gift of life becomes a waste because of a lack of insurance, or money, for expensive immunosuppresants (medication for transplant recipients), and they are forced to go back on dialysis, a life-sustaining machine.
If we examine the fiscal policy behind this, we can see that it is absurd.
The average yearly cost of dialysis is averaged out to be $60,000, which is either paid by insurance companies, or, more likely, Medicare, your tax dollars. The average yearly cost of immunosuppresant medication is less than a third of that- $17,000, rounded up. For the first three years after transplant surgery, Medicare pays, except for a small co-pay, the whole cost of this.
After those three years, you're pretty much on your own-if you can't pay for the medication, too bad. Too bad means you're probably going to lose the organ and go back on dialysis, which will be paid by Medicare anyway. It's just fiscally irresponsible.
Why should the government pay for something more expensive that leads to a decrease in quality of life, and the ability to seek employment? In the short term, it might make sense, but in the long term, it doesn't make any sense at all, and triples the budget needs for kidney disease patients.
If you are outraged, like I am, at the fiscal and moral irresponsibility displayed here, tell your Congressman and Senator to vote for H.R. Bill 3282 / Senate Bill 2320. Remember that 26 million adults in this country have kidney disease, and less than 10% know about it.
Not only will you be spending less tax dollars, but you could be in need of help one day, too, so you're advocating for yourself.
I had an amazing time; people from all over the country came to a convention center to talk about organ donation and kidney health.
I met doctors, pharmaceutical sales reps, nurses, teachers, lawyers, organ recipients, organ donors, and family members of deceased donors.
It was heartwarming to hear stories about saved lives and the story of hope; that when all else seems to have failed, the gift of life from another human being gave someone another few decades to live.
I remember a few tearful moments hearing about someone's struggle with kidney disease, and their story of waiting on a list for an organ; and that a good hearted woman who had lost her husband in a car accident, donated his organs to save other people.
Even in death, there is life.
We discussed a lot of issues, including safety, advocacy, patients rights, and surgery. But most important, I feel, was the issue of medication.
Each year, an average of 13% of people who have received organs lose them because they are unable to afford medication. The generous gift of life becomes a waste because of a lack of insurance, or money, for expensive immunosuppresants (medication for transplant recipients), and they are forced to go back on dialysis, a life-sustaining machine.
If we examine the fiscal policy behind this, we can see that it is absurd.
The average yearly cost of dialysis is averaged out to be $60,000, which is either paid by insurance companies, or, more likely, Medicare, your tax dollars. The average yearly cost of immunosuppresant medication is less than a third of that- $17,000, rounded up. For the first three years after transplant surgery, Medicare pays, except for a small co-pay, the whole cost of this.
After those three years, you're pretty much on your own-if you can't pay for the medication, too bad. Too bad means you're probably going to lose the organ and go back on dialysis, which will be paid by Medicare anyway. It's just fiscally irresponsible.
Why should the government pay for something more expensive that leads to a decrease in quality of life, and the ability to seek employment? In the short term, it might make sense, but in the long term, it doesn't make any sense at all, and triples the budget needs for kidney disease patients.
If you are outraged, like I am, at the fiscal and moral irresponsibility displayed here, tell your Congressman and Senator to vote for H.R. Bill 3282 / Senate Bill 2320. Remember that 26 million adults in this country have kidney disease, and less than 10% know about it.
Not only will you be spending less tax dollars, but you could be in need of help one day, too, so you're advocating for yourself.
Be the first to comment on this story