A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Government Compensation of Kidney Donors

被引:116
|
作者
Held, P. J. [1 ]
McCormick, F. [2 ]
Ojo, A. [3 ]
Roberts, J. P. [4 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Nephrol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] Bank Amer, US Econ & Financial Res, San Francisco, CA USA
[3] Univ Michigan Hlth Syst, Dept Nephrol, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Surg, Transplant Serv, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
clinical research; practice; health services and outcomes research; kidney transplantation; nephrology; law; legislation; organ transplantation in general; dialysis; donors and donation: living; quality of life (QOL); kidney transplantation: living donor; organ allocation; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; IRANIAN MODEL; COVERAGE; RISK; TRANSPLANTATION; MARKET; LIVE;
D O I
10.1111/ajt.13490
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
From 5000 to 10000 kidney patients die prematurely in the United States each year, and about 100000 more suffer the debilitating effects of dialysis, because of a shortage of transplant kidneys. To reduce this shortage, many advocate having the government compensate kidney donors. This paper presents a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of such a change. It considers not only the substantial savings to society because kidney recipients would no longer need expensive dialysis treatments$1.45 million per kidney recipientbut also estimates the monetary value of the longer and healthier lives that kidney recipients enjoyabout $1.3 million per recipient. These numbers dwarf the proposed $45000-per-kidney compensation that might be needed to end the kidney shortage and eliminate the kidney transplant waiting list. From the viewpoint of society, the net benefit from saving thousands of lives each year and reducing the suffering of 100000 more receiving dialysis would be about $46 billion per year, with the benefits exceeding the costs by a factor of 3. In addition, it would save taxpayers about $12 billion each year.
引用
收藏
页码:877 / 885
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis
    Held, Philip J.
    McCormick, Frank
    Chertow, Glenn M.
    Peters, Thomas G.
    Roberts, John P.
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (11):
  • [2] Projecting the Economic Impact of Compensating Living Kidney Donors in the United States: Cost-Benefit Analysis Demonstrates Substantial Patient and Societal Gains
    McCormick, Frank
    Held, Philip J.
    Chertow, Glenn M.
    Peters, Thomas G.
    Roberts, John P.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (12) : 2028 - 2033
  • [3] On the Cognitive Argument for Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Christiansen, Andreas
    ETHICAL THEORY AND MORAL PRACTICE, 2018, 21 (02) : 217 - 230
  • [4] On the Cognitive Argument for Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Andreas Christiansen
    Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2018, 21 : 217 - 230
  • [5] Cost-benefit analysis for banking internationalization
    Yuan, Xuemei
    Ma, Li
    Proceedings of the 2005 Conference of System Dynamics and Management Science, Vol 1: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ASIA PACIFIC, 2005, : 485 - 489
  • [6] PARTIAL VALUATION IN COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    Rowell, Arden
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW, 2012, 64 (03) : 723 - 742
  • [7] Adding thymoglobuline to the conventional immunosuppressant regimen in kidney transplantation: A cost-benefit analysis
    Oliaei, Farshid
    Akbari, Roghayeh
    Mirsaeid, Ali Mohammad Ghazi
    CASPIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2012, 3 (04) : 514 - 518
  • [8] Application of a Cost-benefit Analysis Model to the Use of Flame Retardants
    McNamee, Margaret Simonson
    Andersson, Petra
    FIRE TECHNOLOGY, 2015, 51 (01) : 67 - 83
  • [9] Climate Regulation and the Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Masur, Jonathan S.
    Posner, Eric A.
    CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, 2011, 99 (06) : 1557 - 1599
  • [10] Survival Benefit From Kidney Transplantation Using Kidneys From Deceased Donors Aged 75 Years: A Time-Dependent Analysis
    Perez-Saez, M. J.
    Arcos, E.
    Comas, J.
    Crespo, M.
    Lloveras, J.
    Pascual, J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2016, 16 (09) : 2724 - 2733