Blog Archives

What Happens If and When Obamacare is Repealed


Donald Trump and the Republicans have vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and it is very likely they will follow through. If they repeal the ACA and do not replace it with something comparable or better, as many as 25 million people could be without insurance by 2020. Additionally, many if not most people may have less comprehensive coverage and higher co-pays, but that all depends on what kind of replacement plan the congress approves if any. And that — is only the tip of this ugly iceberg.

This blog only deals with repeal while the House has approved a replacement bill, the U.S. Senate has not. We will cover that as thoroughly as possible when it happens.

Few remember this, but just before ACA passed in 2010 the health insurance companies hiked their rates significantly. Since then they have raised rates several more times. Let’s be clear here, ACA is NOT raising your rates, there is no provision in the act that allows for that. Many have complained that ACA is responsible for increased rates, but that’s really an empty claim because we don’t know what insurance rates would have done if there was no ACA. One thing for sure, rate hikes always come from the Insurance companies. If ACA is repealed you will get far less coverage, but you can be sure the insurance companies don’t reduce their rates by a single dime.

If ACA is repealed everyone will feel it, even the very wealthy. The difference is they can afford to self-insure– maybe. Today the cost of some procedures and care is so high that it might even hurt the mega rich to have to pay out-of-pocket. 10 years ago I had a heart transplant. According to the National Transplant Foundation, the average cost today for the same procedure would be $1.2 million. That price includes first-year medications and care. You can review other costs here. ( A heart/lung transplant would cost $2.3 million. That would make even a wealthy person sit up and take notice.  (If you would like to examine the effect of ACA on health care costs Gary Cameron of the Reuters news service.wrote this for Time. )

The Trump administration is also talking about cuts to both Medicare and Medicaid. It remains to be seen what that means but this congress is in a cutting mood, so it is unlikely that their actions will result in anything beneficial to many with chronic illnesses. You can also expect that if there was ever any hope of extending coverage for anti-rejection drugs past 36 months for Kidney transplant patients it ended with Trump’s Inauguration.

Very few people are aware that Medicare is also affected by repeal of Obamacare. There are several areas that will be negatively impacted but the part that helps seniors with Prescription costs will take the biggest hit.

The Senate bill slashes tax revenues by $701 billion over a decade, while reducing Medicaid spending by $772 billion versus current law. Overall, the Senate bill reduces federal health care spending by $1 trillion.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the bill’s tax benefits for the 400 highest earning households in America alone are equal to the cost of keeping Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in four states that cover 726,000 people.

  • The ACA helps seniors in the donut hole until it is closed. Copayments required for brand-name and generic drugs are being phased down to the standard 25 percent by 2020. Brand-name drugs discounts from manufacturers increase each year in the coverage gap. Copayments for generic drugs are reduced by seven percentage points each year until the coverage gap is eliminated.
  • In 2016, seniors receive a 55 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs and a 42 percent discount on generic drugs, which is applied at the pharmacy. Below are the amounts that beneficiaries will pay for their medications until the donut hole is closed in 2020.
    • 2016: 45 percent for brand-names and 58 percent for generics
    • 2017: 40 percent for brand-names and 51 percent for generics
    • 2018: 35 percent for brand-names and 44 percent for generics
    • 2019: 30 percent for brand-names and 37 percent for generics
    • 2020: 25 percent for brand-names and 25 percent for generics

Ever since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed in 2010, Republicans have vowed to repeal acait. They have made many claims about what a “Disaster” it is, but offer little in the way of evidence other than point to increased premiums. Premiums, though, were out of control long before there was an ACA and many experts say that if anything the sweeping health care bill slowed their increase. If Republicans are successful in repealing the act you will be affected in many ways, now and in the future. I’d like to keep this blog relatively short so I will only address four issues here, but they are big ones.

  1. Pre-existing conditions
  2. Children on your policy until age 26
  3. Medicaid changes
  4. Medicare adjustments

Effect Number One. Pre-existing Conditions

People have short memories so let me remind you what the health insurance environment was like prior to 2010. Example. A woman I know was having problems sleeping,, that’s all. She was in otherwise excellent health. To help her sleep, her doctor prescribed Remeron which is also an anti-depressant. Due to family circumstances, she had to move to a different state, a state in which her current health insurance had no coverage. She thought nothing of it because she was healthy, so she shopped around for new insurance, found one she liked and applied. Almost immediately she was denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition of depression even though she was not suffering from depression. The drug, Remeron, was prescribed to help her sleep but the new insurance company ignored that detail. Her only option was to keep her old insurance from another state even though she was out of network. Under those circumstances, this healthy woman had become uninsurable because of one medication that was not even prescribed for the purpose identified in the rejection notice. That is what we likely will be returning to. But there’s more.

conditionsIf the ACA is repealed without a replacement plan and maybe even with one here’s what you can expect.

Let’s say a young couple finds they are about to have a child. The husband just got a new job in another state so they will have to move and get new insurance as well. Here’s what they are likely to run into if ACA is repealed.

  • Pregnancy could easily be considered a pre-existing condition, at least the insurance companies would have that option. That means when this family looks for new coverage insurers could deny it or charge exorbitant rates.
  • Even if they got insurance, the plan would likely not include maternity coverage, as was the case for over 60 percent of enrollees in individual market plans in 2011.
  • They’d get no financial assistance to help ensure they can find a good plan within their budget and there would be no help in paying their out-of-pocket costs.
  • Healthy pregnancy, births, and newborns programs would no longer exist, putting the family at greater risk for other health problems.
  • And the family would likely have to pay out of pocket for each new baby visit and any ensuing treatments, injections or other procedures.

Some estimates indicate that nearly a half of all Americans have a pre-existing medical condition that could make it difficult to find insurance, and about 3 million of them are now insured under the ACA. If and when it is repealed those who have insurance could lose it and those without insurance, or who leave their old plans for any reason such as job change, divorce, or relocation, may find it impossible to get a new plan. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that if the pre-existing conditions provision is repealed, 52 million Americans could be at risk of being denied health care coverage.

Effect Number Two. Children Covered by Parent’s Insurance to Age 26

If ACA is repealed and not replaced with something equivalent or better, that means thatyoung-healthy-adults once you turn 19 or are no longer a full-time student, you are on your own for insurance coverage, increasing the financial burden on young adults who are unemployed, underemployed, contractors, working for small companies, or those starting their own businesses. Young people are less likely to get seriously ill and often don’t use insurance when they have it. Insurance companies would love to have these men and women paying premiums again, though, because they use so little of the coverage and help to defray the cost of covering others.

This is a popular benefit among some Republican office holders because their children are affected so it might be added to whatever replacement the GOP drafts, although the age limit could potentially get lowered by a year or two.

Effect Number Three. Medicaid

One of the most appealing aspects of health-care reform for many was the ability to get subsidized insurance policies, reducing out-of-pocket costs. According to Kaiser Health medicaidNews, all but 19 states expanded the income limits for people to get Medicaid insurance and in some cases limits were pushed to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Also, tax credits beyond that helped even middle-class workers and families afford their monthly premiums. The Affordable Care Act was affordable largely because of the Government subsidies. While all Republicans in congress opposed the expansion of Medicaid, many Republican State Governors accepted the plan for their states. Medicaid is funded by the Feds but run by the states. If ACA is repealed and Medicaid expansion goes out the window the states will be left with the choice of funding it or telling their citizens that they are cutting the program. That could have disastrous effects for Republicans in coming elections.

Based on the resistance that red states had to the idea of expanding Medicaid coverage in the first place — even with the federal government covering almost all of the expense — it will not be surprising to see a GOP plan that either decreases or completely remove the tax credits or other subsidies. Almost all Republicans agree it must go. There seems to be little agreement on if or how to replace it.

Effect Number Four. Medicare  Cuts

Here comes trouble. Like Social Security this is the healthcare third rail, it can mean political suicide for anyone that makes any negative changes in the national health care system for people age 65 and over. The great majority of them are not working, have no income other than Social Security and some savings and they are uninsurable outside of Medicare (supplemental programs excepted). Some see Medicare as totally separate from the ACA and in some ways it is, but they are also intertwined. Too many seniors think they are immune from change, they are not.

According to the Kaiser Foundation, a full repeal of ACA would restore higher payments fordonut-hole services performed under the managed-care portion of Medicare known as Medicare Advantage.  That, then, could lead to increased Medicare Advantage premiums. It could also mean an end to free preventive services and could result in greater premiums and increased out-of-pocket costs, or both.

Perhaps the most notable change would be to reverse efforts to close the “doughnut hole” for prescription drugs. One provision of the Affordable Care Act dramatically cut the amount that seniors on Medicare have to pay for their medicines under Medicare Part D. prior to the ACA’s passage, beneficiaries got some coverage up to a certain dollar amount, and then none until high-dollar, catastrophic coverage provisions kicked in. Once in that “donut hole” seniors paid the full price. Under ACA that coverage gap was supposed to end in 2020.

Now here’s what they are NOT telling you. It is now projected that ACA spending between now and 2020 is $1 trillion LOWER than the original Congressional Budget Office estimate. That means the trust fund for Medicare is now projected to remain solvent 11 years longer than before the Affordable Care Act was enacted. Strangely none of the repeal advocates has mentioned that fact.

For these reasons, it is important to be clear. The repeal of Obamacare will mean that Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay millions more for prescription drugs and won’t have access to free preventive care, while the program itself will be put in financial jeopardy.

As long as this blog is,  it doesn’t begin to cover the full impact of ACA repeal and it says nothing about replacement because we have been unable to find a single plan for doing that that has been released. There are several people who say they have plans, but none have provided documents yet.  We’ll keep our eye on it and do what we can to keep you informed. We’ll report more as we can.


bobBob Aronson is the founder of Facebook’s 4300 member Organ Transplant Initiative and also of this site, Bob’s Newheart. Look through the index and you’ll find nearly 300 blogs of interest to Transplant patients, their families, friends, caregivers, donors and donor families. 


Big Pharma They Love a Sick Population and Want To Keep it That Way

As most of our readers know I am not only a senior citizen but one who has had a heart transplant.  I am on Medicare, have supplemental insurance and also participate in Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program.

Both age and my status as a transplant recipient cause me to take several expensive drugs.  While anti-rejection drugs are fully covered by Medicare others for blood pressure, COPD and thyroid are not.  They are expensive, very expensive and while in the so-called “Donut hole” we have paid nearly $1,000 a month so the price of prescription drugs is a big issue in our home.  Upon passage of the affordable care act the cost was cut in half but $500 a month is still a lot of money.  That’s my lead in to this question.

Will someone please offer a reasonable, understandable and clear explanation as to why Medicare is not allowed by law to negotiate the price of drugs?  I have researched this issue for hours and can’t find a simple explanation.  There are a lot of convoluted, rambling excuses but not a clear reason.  Here’s an example of the reasoning Pharmaceutical companies use for their opposition to allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs (like the Veterans Administration does).  “Federal price negotiations would represent a policy change carrying significant risks for research and development investment in new and improved medicines. A substantial body of research shows that similar federal drug programs impose prices substantially lower than those negotiated in the private sector, and that such lower prices inevitably will reduce research and investment in new and improved medicines. This slowdown in pharmaceutical innovation will yield highly adverse effects upon future patients in terms of reduced life expectancies.”

Yakkity, Yak, blah, blah, blah!.  On one hand big pharma tells us that negotiating drug prices would cut research money while on the other hand we learn they have spent $2.3 billion on lobbying and $183 million on campaign contributions since 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The ready money serves as a strong deterrent against any legislative proposal that would lower costs for consumers and profits for the drug makers.  Furthermore keeping drug prices high for seniors adds $150 to $300 Billion to drug industry profits over a ten year period. The increased costs hit the pockets of both seniors and taxpayers.

Yeah, those poor pharma people sure are hurting.  When you are willing to spend over $2 Billion to protect your profitability, profitability must be sky high.  I don’t know how, in good conscience any member of congress or the President of the United States can oppose giving Medicare the right to negotiate the price of drugs.  They are, after all, probably the biggest supplier of drugs in the world but that’s not the end of the pharma, health insurance, special interest war on us (yes us, you and me) campaign.

Let us take a look at the drugs that keep organ transplant patients alive. They are called immunosuppressants or more commonly, anti-rejection drugs.  Here’s the story. If you are of retirement age or disabled or somehow covered by Medicare they will pay 80% of the cost of an organ transplant and the full cost of those absolutely necessary anti- rejection drugs for the rest of your life.  Without them organ transplant patients would die.

Here’s the rub —  If you have kidney disease (only kidney patients are eligible for this program) and are not disabled or of retirement age Medicare will pay 80% of the cost of the transplant but will only provide you with free anti-rejection drugs for thirty six months.  Some people would say, “That’s fair, a person should be able to go back to work and pay for their own drugs,” and that is a reasonable thought but the price of anti-rejection drugs is anything but reasonable.  They can cost from $1,000 to $3,000 per month, for life.  If you stop taking them your body will begin to reject your organ and you could die.

Now here’s where the story becomes absolute nonsense.  Let’s assume you can’t pay for the drugs and you go into rejection and are hospitalized.  Medicare will pay 80% of the cost of your care and even 80% of the cost of another transplant and if a transplant able organ is not available they will pay for you to be on dialysis for the rest of your life.  Taxpayers spend more than $20 billion a year to care for about 400,000 people who get dialysis treatments — about $77,000 per patient.  The most that anti-rejection drugs would cost would be less than half that amount, $36,000 per year, yet congress refuses to allow Medicare to pay for the drugs. Every year a bill is introduced that would at least extend the 36 month period if not eliminate it entirely but it is defeated every time.

If you think all of this is pretty stupid, it gets dumber. One of the organizations that has opposed extending the 36 month period is the National Kidney Foundation (NKF).  NKF says they oppose the added benefit because money to pay for it would have to come out of dollars earmarked for dialysis coverage, but wait…if patients had the drugs they wouldn’t need dialysis, would they?  Do you get the idea that NKF has an interest in keeping the dialysis industry alive?  The dialysis industry is huge and there are only two major players.  If you want to learn more about this industry go to

There is an adage that says  you shouldn’t let the fox guard the chicken coop but it seems that is what has happened in health care generally but certainly in the two situations I outlined here.  According to Open, The Pharmaceutical industry alone spends billions of dollars on influencing our lawmakers…here’s the chart…

Top Contributors, 2011-2012



Pfizer   Inc


Amgen   Inc


Abbott   Laboratories


Stryker   Corp


AstraZeneca   PLC


Merck   & Co


Johnson   & Johnson


Upsher-Smith   Laboratories


Eli   Lilly & Co


McKesson   Corp


4Life Research


EOE   Inc




Masimo   Corp


AmerisourceBergen   Corp


Roche   Holdings


Novartis   AG


Harris   Frc


Bayer   AG




Contributions to Democrats  Republicans  Outside Spending Groups

Top Recipients, 2011-2012




Obama, Barack (D)      $785,385
Romney, Mitt (R)      $622,986
Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT)


Upton, Fred (R-MI)


Brown, Scott (R-MA)



This election cycle has us talking about the economy and where our money is going and it’s missing the boat completely.  Your money, most of your money, maybe all of your money will eventually go to the Pharmaceutical companies and there is little or no control over them.  The spend Billions of dollars influencing our lawmakers to make sure that their profitability is left unchecked and for the most part it is.

It is big Pharma that doesn’t want Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs, so you pay more, it is big Pharma that inflates the price of some drugs to such a high point that some families either can’t afford them and die or lose everything to pay for them.  It is big Pharma that produces drug X for $5.00 in Mexico and the same drug for $50.00 in the U.S. and then they want a ban on going to Mexico to get it cheaper.  It is big Pharma that gouges the elderly to the point where some have to choose between eating and taking their meds.  These ultra capitalists have no heart and no soul.  They think, eat, sleep and dream profits and boy are they good at it.

Healthcare has long been one of my favorite topics and while it has taken me far to long to arrive at this conclusion I have arrived.  It seems quite obvious that the nearly $1 trillion a year worldwide pharmaceutical business primary goal is to make sure we either are sick or think we are sick.   Consider this, they don’t make a dime on dead or well people so making us sick or having us believe we are sick is good for business.  Think about all the syndromes we hear about restless legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical syndrome, chediak-higashi syndrome, chinese restaurant syndromeonder chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome, churg-strauss syndrome, conn’s syndrome, cornelia de lange syndrome  and costochondral syndrome…and this is a short list.  All of those syndromes, real or imagined are treated by some sort of medication, expensive medication.  the Pharmaceutical companies love syndromes and discover them with great regularity so they can convince physicians to diagnose them and then prescribe for the malady.

Isn’t it interesting that none of the current crop of politicians ever talks about this elephant in the living room. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping us just a little bit sick so they can sell the expensive treatments they have developed.  Which makes you this, “do they ever seriously look for cures?”  Why would they?   There’s nowhere near as much money in a cure as there is in a new drug to treat an existing condition.

And…consider this, too.  There is a wide variety of serious diseases that affect very few people, they are called “Orphan” diseases like  acrocephalosyndactylia, Acrodermatitis, Addisons disease,Aamyotophic Lateral Sclerosis, Adie Syndrome, Amylose, Asperger Syndrome,Barret Esophagus, Bardet-biedl syndrome and thousands more.  These diseases are rare enough that little research big Pharma money is spent on trying to find either cures or treatments because there’s not enough potential profit in it.   Why spend money on a disease that affects a few thousand when you can develop a drug that affects millions and increase profits substantially.

Big Pharma control of our health and what we pay to either fix it or keep it is an issue that affects everyone but for some strange reason we’d rather talk about who marries who, Prince William’s nudity in a hotel and tax cuts for rich people.  Americans ought to wake up and see what is really affecting their daily lives and their wallets.  It’s not two women who want to marry each other.  It’s big Pharma and if you look closely at any time of the night or day they have a hand in your wallet.



Bob Aronson of Bob’s Newheart is a 2007 heart transplant recipient, the founder of Facebook’s nearly 2,500 member Organ Transplant Initiative and the author of most of these donation/transplantation blogs.

You may comment in the space provided or email your thoughts to me at And – please spread the word about the immediate need for more organ donors. There is nothing you can do that is of greater importance. If you convince one person to be an organ and tissue donor you may save or positively affect over 60 lives. Some of those lives may be people you know and love.

Please view our video “Thank You From the Bottom of my Donor’s heart” on This video was produced to promote organ donation so it is free and no permission is needed for its use.

If you want to spread the word personally about organ donation, we have another PowerPoint slide show for your use free and without permission. Just go to and click on “Life Pass It On” on the left side of the screen and then just follow the directions. This is NOT a stand-alone show; it needs a presenter but is professionally produced and factually sound. If you decide to use the show I will send you a free copy of my e-book, “How to Get a Standing “O” that will help you with presentation skills. Just write to and usually you will get a copy the same day.

Also…there is more information on this blog site about other donation/transplantation issues. Additionally we would love to have you join our Facebook group, Organ Transplant Initiative The more members we get the greater our clout with decision makers.

Not Enough Transplantable Organs, Thousands Die…Options for Change

There will come a time when organ/tissue/blood donors are no longer needed.  Advancements in mechanical devices, therapeutic cloning (duplication of organs not people) and regenerative methods will negate the need for human donation.  But, that’s not going to happen any time soon and until it does we are going to have a shortage that results in thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Twenty eight years ago, The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) was approved.  Sponsored by Democrat Representative Al Gore and Republican Senator Orin Hatch the act outlawed the sale of human organs and provided for the establishment of a volunteer (Altruistic) system of organ donation in the United States. NOTA  also authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to make grants for the planning and establishment of Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs); and established the formation of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). 

That was 28 years ago.  Since then thousands of lives have been saved by organ transplants but the number of available organs has always, from the very beginning, lagged behind the number of people who need them.

As of right now there are 112,640 waiting list candidates but so far this year there have been only 23,745 transplants done and only 11,711 donors (data from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing ). The numbers are really all the evidence we need to show that the altruistic system is not working.  Each year about 6,000 people die while waiting for a transplant.  Thousands of other Americans never even get on the list because of a lack of access to specialized care or because they can’t afford a transplant. 

While many find this to be an intolerable situation neither DHHS nor UNOS seem interested in making any change to the system.  From time to time they will assemble “Ethics” panels to study ways to augment or change it but the answer is always the same, “Unethical.” One can easily ask, “What is ethical about letting all these people die?  How can you possibly look at these numbers and say, “Presumed consent and/or some kind of compensation system for donors, is unethical?”  Surely something can be designed that will provide the needed number of organs and still be an ethical practice.

I recognize that the highly skilled, educated professionals who make these “Ethical” decisions are faced with a double edged sword 1) changing the system could produce negative publicity and affect their reputations and perhaps some funding and 2) the ethics of allowing people to die.  Given those conditions it still seems that allowing people to die is more unethical than making some well-considered changes that would harm no one and benefit many. And…the situation is only going to get worse because modern technology is allowing people to live longer which is adding to the list of people waiting for transplants.

Twenty eight years of letting people die.  About 168,000 people are gone because the Ivory tower thinkers refuse to or are afraid to make a change.  Had changes been made in the past many of the 168,000 casualties would be alive today and who knows what contributions they might have made to our society.   

As I noted in the first paragraph, in the long term we probably won’t need to have a donor system but it will be many years before any of those means become commonly practical.  So we’re stuck with the old question, “What do we do to narrow or eliminate the gap between available organs and those who need them?”

My research indicates that while there are not a plentitude of options to consider there are some and they include:


  1. 1.    Mandatory donation (anyone who dies is automatically a donor, no exceptions)
  2. 2.    The LifeSharers approach, (you can only receive an organ if you are a donor)
  3. 3.    Presumed consent (You are automatically a donor unless you opt out)
  4. 4.    Some sort of compensation plan for donors and/or their families.
  5. 5.    A combination of presumed consent and a payment system

 Let us tackle mandatory donation first.  On its surface it sounds harsh and like a product out of an HG wells book.  It is harsh and probably unacceptable because of its dictatorial overtones.  Americans don’t seem to like anything that is mandatory whether it is good for them or not, so mandatory donation is unlikely to receive enthusiastic support.

 Aaron Spital, and James Stacey Taylor (Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; and Department of Philosophy, College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey) have written a persuasive paper on the subject of mandatory organ donation. Their proposal is simple:  

 ”We propose that the requirement for consent for cadaveric organ recovery be eliminated and that whenever a person dies with transplantable organs, these be recovered routinely. Consent for such recovery should be neither required nor sought.”   

The two researchers go on to say,

“We believe that the major problem with our present cadaveric organ procurement system is its absolute requirement for consent. As such, the system’s success depends on altruism and voluntarism. Unfortunately, this approach has proved to be inefficient. Despite tremendous efforts to increase public commitment to posthumous organ donation, exemplified most recently by the US Department of Health and Human Services sponsored Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative many families who are asked for permission to recover organs from a recently deceased relative still say no. The result is a tragic syllogism: nonconsent leads to nonprocurement of potentially life-saving organs, and nonprocurement limits the number of people who could have been saved through transplantation; therefore, nonconsent results in loss of life.”  

While it is difficult to disagree from a purely logical standpoint, emotions run high on issues like this and it is unlikely to get approval from the American Public.

The second option listed is the approach where registered donors would be offered organs first, regardless of how ill other patients on the list might be.  In the U.S. there is one organization, LifeSharers, that has promoted that idea for several years and while they have nearly 15,000 members ( they have had virtually no impact. In order for the concept to work, they would have to sign up just about every single American…that’s not likely to happen and as far as we know, no LifeSharers member has yet been a donor to another LifeSharers member.  To be fair, however, the nation of Israel has adopted a form of the LifeSharers program but it’s still too early to make any assessments on its success or acceptance. 

Most people who object to the “Donors” first concept say it is because it deviates from the practice of offering organs (provided there is a match) to the sickest patient first.  Their program would offer organs to members first and then if there was no match, the organ could go to the sickest person.  Many people object because despite our great national communication system, there are still millions of people who don’t understand the donation/transplantation process, haven’t heard about it, didn’t know you could register to be a donor or, because of a multitude of myths, think they can’t be donors. Despite the honorable efforts by LifeSharers founder Dave Undis, the concept is not being seriously considered by the U.S. transplant community.  Additionally LifeSharers growth has been slow indicating limited acceptance by the public.  You can learn more about LifeSharers at

The third option is presumed consent and if any option is ever approved in the United States or even some of the states, this will likely be the one. Currently under our altruistic program people “opt in” by signing a donor card and having “Donor’ placed on their driver’s license or other official state ID card. Presumed consent is the opposite.  It assumes that everybody wants to be a donor and so you would “Opt out” if you don’t want to be a donor and likely would carry a card that says “Not a donor.”  You can learn more about presumed consent at

In countries where presumed consent is in effect, (Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland, Greece, and Singapore) the opt out rate has been around 2% which means that 98% of the eligible population would be organ donors as opposed to under 50% in the United States where we have the opt In program. That’s a big difference.  The great leveler, however, may be that the countries with opt out as their system still ask family members, at the time of the donors death, for their approval. If they refuse the organ is not recovered. 

The most politically sensitive of all the issues is the outright sale of organs.   At this point I know of no serious effort in the U.S. that would change our laws to allow a person to sell his/her organs on the open market.  It is not realistic to think that any U.S. regulatory or government agency would even consider the idea.  Strangely, In Iran of all places, it is legal to sell organs and a healthy kidney retails for about $6,000.

Iran legalized living non-related donation (LNRD) of kidneys in 1988.  The Iranian government regulates and funds the donation/transplantation process and compensates donors for their organs. A third-party group arranges contact between donors and recipients (much like U.S. Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs). In addition to payment from the government, donors receive free health insurance.  The transplant recipient benefits from highly subsidized immunosuppression support. Iranian law also provides for charitable organizations to pay the cost of transplants for people who can’t afford them.  Here’s an interesting twist, though.  It is illegal for the medical teams or any ‘middleman’ like our OPOs to receive payment.  Within a year of being implemented the number of transplants in Iran almost doubled.

 They system seems to be working in Iran and it certainly could work here…it isn’t as though we aren’t selling things similar to organs.  Currently in the United States it is legal to sell yourself to become a surrogate mother and everyday people are paid for sperm, eggs and hair so why not organs.  The Iran concept is certainly an option but polls continually indicate it is not a very popular one.

 There are some variations on the “Payment” theme that might be attractive to the American people.   We could consider a system that “compensates” rather than pays donors or their families.  For example, a living kidney donor does not have to pay for the surgery to remove the donated kidney nor does that person have to pay for any of the medical care surrounding the operation those costs are absorbed by the recipients insurance coverage.  The donor’s, though, often accrue other expenses like travel to the city in which the recipient lives, lodging, food and time away from work, which could be significant especially if there are any surgical complications.  A very good case could be made for compensation for these expenses.

There are other considerations as well. Dr. Sally Satel a Psychiatrist and a kidney transplant recipient who is also a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute has written and spoken extensively on the subject of compensation, “The solution to this lethal paternalism, as I and others have argued, is not to create a direct exchange of cash for kidneys, but for Congress to let donors accept a carefully devised and regulated government benefit — perhaps a tax credit, a contribution to a retirement plan or early access to Medicare.” 

It would not be a huge stretch to extend Dr. Satel’s ideas to families of deceased donors while also covering funeral expenses even providing some help with college tuition for their children, subsidized prescriptions or even subsidized health care insurance. You can read more on Dr. Satel’s thoughts by going to .

The final option that could be considered is a combination of presumed consent and a form of compensation that follows the lines described by Dr.Satel. 

The point of this blog is to just get people thinking.  The present system isn’t doing the job and never will despite heroic efforts at increasing organ donation, there just aren’t enough donors.  That we must change if we are to stop the dying, is a given.  Determining what that change should be is what is so incredibly difficult. 


Consider what I’ve written, discuss it with friends, join discussions on Facebook’s Organ Transplant Initiative and comment in the space provided here.  When you have decided what you think is the best solution, you should contact your elected representative or U.S. Senator and let them know your feelings.  Change has to begin somewhere, why not with you?

You may comment in the space provided or email your thoughts to me at And – please spread the word about the immediate need for more organ donors. There is nothing you can do that is of greater importance. If you convince one person to be an organ and tissue donor you may save or  positively affect over 60 lives. Some of those lives may be people you know and love.

Please view our two brand new video “Thank You From the Bottom of my Donor’s heart” on This video was produced to promote organ donation so it is free and no permission is needed for its use.

Also…there  is more information on this blog site about other donation/transplantation issues.  Additionally we would love to have you join our Facebook group, Organ Transplant Initiative The more members we get the greater  our clout with decision makers.

%d bloggers like this: