The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How to End America's Kidney Shortage
Two leading experts explain how legalizing organ markets can fix the problem, thereby saving tens of thousands of lives each year, and greatly reducing the suffering of patients on the kidney waiting list.
In a recent article in Regulation, economist Frank McCormick and Stanford Medical School Professor explain how the United States could put an end to our persistent shortage of kidneys for transplant:
News stories abound of kind people—relatives, close friends, and even complete strangers—who donate a kidney to someone suffering from kidney failure. These stories usually explain that people whose kidneys have failed must either obtain a transplant, which enables them to live 10–20 years in reasonably good health, or suffer on dialysis for an average of four to five years as their health steadily deteriorates until they die.
Sometimes these stories explain that many kidney failure patients never receive the optimal treatment of a transplant because there is a drastic shortage of transplant kidneys. About 125,000 patients are diagnosed with kidney failure each year, but only about 22,000 receive a transplant. In a 2022 Value in Health article, we estimate that more than 40,000 additional kidney failure patients would be saved from premature death each year if they received kidney transplants….
Few if any of these news stories lamenting the kidney shortage or touting high‐tech breakthroughs mention that we already have a solution to the shortage: compensating kidney donors to induce more supply. Frustratingly, the U.S. government is obstructing this solution.
NOTA is the problem / Virtually all economists who have studied the issue believe the basic cause of the kidney shortage is a provision in the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA): "It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce."
This sentence seems innocuous, but it imposes a price ceiling of near‐zero on the market for kidneys. Both economic theory and abundant evidence have shown that whenever the government holds the price of a good below the market‐clearing price, it causes a shortage of that good. Moreover, if the government holds the price far below the market‐clearing price (our 2022 article estimates that price would be about $80,000 per kidney), then the shortage will be huge: more than 40,000 kidneys per year in the United States alone. For context, that is more deaths than from motor vehicle crashes each year.
It's worth adding that, in addition to saving numerous lives, organ markets would also save thousands of people from the enormous pain and expense of spending years on kidney dialysis. That's a huge burden even for those fortunate enough to eventually get a transplant.
It's important to recognize that legalizing kidney markets would not, of course, require individual patients to personally purchase kidneys at some kind of store or auction. Rather, they would be bought by health care providers, just as other complex medical supplies currently are. They would have strong incentives to assure quality and safety (as is currently true with unpaid donations). Indeed, the option of payment can actually improve quality, by eliminating shortages that may currently lead to pressure for lower standards. Medical insurance providers would have strong incentives to cover the cost of organs, because - among other things - it's a lot cheaper than paying for the alternative of kidney dialysis (as public and private insurance plans currently do in most cases).
While economists across the political spectrum believe that organ markets are the obvious solution to the kidney transplant shortage, McCormick and Held lament (quoting Steve Levitt) that "virtually every non‐economist thinks it is crazy."
It's certainly true that non-economists are far more hostile to organ markets than economists are. But Levitt's assessment is overly pessimistic. In a 2019 American Economic Review article, Julio J. Elías, Nicola Lacetera, and Mario Macis used sophisticated surveys and experiments to show that about half the public is open to supporting kidney sales, a figure that rises to 70% if they believe that markets would end the kidney shortage completely.
I think this study may overstate the amount of support a real-world organ market proposal would enjoy, as it's difficult to model the "yuck factor" fully in an experimental setting. Imagine, for example, the kinds of TV ads that opponents could run ("greedy corporations want to sell off your body parts, one by one"; "rich people will buy up all the kidneys!"). Moreover, real-world rationally ignorant voters often don't know basic economics and therefore don't realize that markets clear up shortages. But the AER study does strongly suggest there is more potential support out there for organ markets than many suppose.
In the meantime, McCormick and Held outline a number of moderate increases in donor compensation that they think are more politically feasible than full-blown legalization of markets. They largely have to do with compensating donors for various expenses they incur. All of these ideas seem worth pursuing. But I am skeptical they will achieve anywhere near as much as full-blown markets would. As always, however, the best should not be the enemy of the good.
In previous writings, I have criticized standard arguments against organ market legalization, such as concerns that it would be too dangerous for organ donors, claims that it amounts to to immoral "commodification" of the body, and fears that it would lead to exploitation of the poor (see also here). Even if these or other objections have more validity than I give them credit for, to justify banning organ markets they have to be significant enough to outweigh the savings of tens of thousands of lives each year, plus the alleviation of enormous suffering by people otherwise condemned to kidney dialysis.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My initial reaction is “yuk”. which tells me to ignore my initial reaction. I have no intellectual resistance to the idea, but I would impose the requirement that the donor must make a greater profit from the sale of their kidney than either the insurer or anyone involved on the medical side.
FWIW I suspect we’re close to approval of commercial 3-D printing of kidneys anyway, so we may never need to have kidney markets.
Actually, you have that backwards: Commercial 3-D printing of kidneys kind of requires a kidney market: You think people are going to print them for free?
At the very least the relevant language would have to be modified to permit a market in synthetic organs.
It is very hard to predict human nature and the potential for abuse here is high. Think back to how abortion went from "safe, legal, and rare" to an individual right up to and including the ninth month?
If this is something you think worthwhile, it's worth taking the time to properly evaluate it from all angles with a diversity of views over time, much like you would any significant proposition. A throw-away link for each argument is hardly persuasive.
Jason Brennan thinks that the disadvantaged are much more likely than others to be mistaken about what they really need, so that they should either be disenfranchised from voting, or have a moral obligation not to vote.
But here we have markets, so Brennan would probably say that the disadvantaged would absolutely know whether or not it is in their bests interests to sell off their organs.
Somin links to prior pieces where he speculates that a poor person might yield $100k for a kidney. But what if the homeless, other poor people, or maybe desperate illegal immigrants drive down the price to $1k, or maybe a bottle of vodka, or a taco supreme with extra cheese? Then what? The market must be correct, wherever it sets the price, right? Maybe they can foot their way to a jurisdiction with a better price? Probably not, because kidneys have gone for much less in other countries.
From the Iranian example, $1K is closer to the truth.
Let’s say that selling kidneys becomes a fairly commonplace transaction, and a lot of people do it. It’s generally thought to be safe, and there is a generally accepted market value. Many people consider their kidney (at least the first of two) as an asset that could be liquefied if needed.
1. Can you make it collateral for a loan?
2. In a divorce proceeding, can the judge order all the liquifiable assets sold, and the resulting cash divided?
3. Suppose there’s a war on. Treating soldiers with severe abdominal wounds is a public use. Can this property be taken as long as fair market value is paid to the owner?
Before signing off on a kidney market, I’d want constitutional-level guarantees that a kidney can never be taken involuntarily, not even to enforce a contract voluntarily entered into.
Remember, there are only about 40,000 kidney needed per year.
That's not a trivial number, but it is small enough that there is no major market - that's about the same number as Cooper Minis sold in the US.
I suspect that the cases you express concern about would hard to find, and it would be easy to fit them into existing laws, without any new Amendments or other special steps needed.
40,000 per year....in the US.
How many worldwide? How many rich foreigners would come to the US to buy a kidney from a poor black mother?
How many rich foreigners come to the US to buy anything from a poor person? Why would they do so, when getting to the top of a legal donor list is easy in most countries, anyway? Why would they even want a poor person's kidney, rather than a middle-class or better person that has lived a healthy lifestyle?
Worldwide, I can't find an estimate of how many people are on the kidney waiting list, but there were ~90,000 transplants done last year, with 27,000 done in the US. Of those, 6000 came from living donors, and 21,000 came from dead people. The US throws away 3000-5000 kidneys per year, due to questionable health restrictions (cite: John Hopkins).
There is something ghoulish about the idea of breaking up dead people into spare parts for money, true. But a mere doubling of the kidney taken from corpses could cover the US's entire needs before living donors are counted. Double again, and you've almost matched the entire world's current supply.
According to the CDC, about 3.5 million people died in the US last year. Doing some basic math on the vital stats and posthumous donor requirements (assuming even distributions, which is definitely false) you'd get about 2,000,000 usable donors, which should be 4,000,000 kidneys - per year.
If 1% of people agreed to donate their kidneys upon death in exchange for money, it'd solve the US's problem - and acts as a minor life insurance policy for survivors.
Larry Niven's organlegger stories (mostly Gil the ARM) do a decent job of covering some of the issues that were predicted when widespread, cheap, and safe organ transplants were. We've managed to avoid most of those without even trying.
I don't think allowing people to make some money off their body (especially their dead body) is any sort of massive moral hazard.
"How many rich"...
So, interesting statistic. The US is one of the few countries which pays for blood plasma donations. As a result, the US exports billions of dollars worth of blood plasma every year, to places like China and the Netherlands. That plasma is overwhelmingly harvested from the poorest neighborhoods in America.
Now, it's not "that" easy to get to the top of kidney donor lists. You could easily see foreigners come to the US for "easy" kidney donations, rather than wait years in their home country. Indeed, even with restrictions in Iran, it's notable that a number of Saudis have been there to take advantage of the local area.
Now, as for kidney donations, typically it's better from live people. You've got a better understanding of the organ. You're not going to realistically increase the number of kidney donations from dead people
Based on paying people $50-$100 for one of the 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 plasma donations in the US each year, then, yeah, anything over $4 each would make that "billions" per year. True enough.
The blood donors, however, mostly aren't poor. They're college students, lower middle class, and working professionals who are short of money. People that are actually destitute are regularly excluded because of things like the health, address, contact requirements (cite: NPR, Atlantic, "Blood Money" by Kathleen McLaughlin). The 'poor' and 'racist' accusations seem to be based off a study that showed that donation centers are usually located in areas with "lower income" and "high proportion of minorities" (which is a polite way to say 'in dense urban areas'). However, the links to the paper itself are on a server that now shows ads for Brazilian football, so I was unable to get anything beyond the abstract.
So what we're seeing is that the US has allowed payment for plasma donations since at least the 1950's (can't find a definite date), but we still don't have any serious impact to 'the poor' or 'the vulnerable'. Incidentally, the average payment for blood stem cell apheresis (same process as donating plasma) is over $300 for the 'non-mobilized' donations (same as plasma) and over $800 for 'mobilized' (given a triggering shot to increase output) - yet despite the high payments, blood banks can't get donors, even from 'the poor', even with advertisements (cite: AP).
That seems to show that paying for medical donations is NOT an oppressive or harmful practice to the population. Which isn't the argument I think you meant to make. Perhaps I missed the point of your argument, though, if you'd care to elaborate.
As for kidney donor lists, I should have said "it's easy for the rich to get a donation" rather than "move to the top of the international public transplant lists". Payment for a directed donation is easy, and even in places where it is 'banned', it is legal to cover 'reasonable costs' - such as long term medical care (even for unrelated problems) after the donation. According to an AP article about a Yale study, rich people who need kidneys are about 5 times as likely to get them as poor people (30% vs 6%).
Related, a Stanford study (cite: Stanford Medicine magazine, Dr Held) suggests that compensations for donations would a) increase the income of poor people by 'billions' per year, and b) result in sick poor people receiving significantly more kidney transplants. Take the income argument with a grain of salt, but the increased availability resulting in increased transplants seems to stand up.
And while deceased donor kidneys are not as good, it's 15-20 years vs 10-15 years. Stage 4 has a 40% 5-year survival rate, while late stage 5 has an 8% 5-year survival rate with dialysis. Even the lesser organ adds an estimated 10 years to the lifespan of someone already in their 70s - a huge benefit, and moreso the younger the recipient is.
I don't see why you wouldn't get more deceased donors if there was payment. I'm curious as to why you think that payment for living donors would increase donations, but payment for posthumous donations would not increase those.
1. The real issue is in the export of human tissues. The US now "dominates" that market, accounting for 70% of global plasma sales. One would imagine that if the US legalized organ sales, US-born kidneys would quickly dominate the global market, being exported all over the world.
Some might consider that exploitative. Especially with a blood supply issue.
2. Not sure what you don't consider "poor". Most college students ARE poor. Harvard kids aren't donating plasma. It's East Southern State kids donating. Most "working class" people ARE poor, making $14 bucks an hour at TJ Maxx.
I think SRG has the right point here: A market in organs derived from actual living humans is very much a transitional thing, we will soon be able to manufacture them using 3d tissue printing. So it's probably a mistake to worry too much about really long term issues with human organ transplantation.
We just need to get through the transitional period.
Maybe. It’s quite plausible. Or maybe it’s like fusion energy, perpetually 10 years away.
I’ll believe it when the first recipient marks the 20th anniversary of his surgery with a party involving liquor and lots of sweets, and doesn't have to interrupt the festivities with a trip to the restroom.
My current theory is that dying with one kidney instead of two will help me sleep better.
Some other modern realities to be faced:
(1) The urology clinic and the seller come to a preliminary agreement. Then the clinic has to call Blue Cross Blue Shield or worse yet, Medicare, to approve the transaction. What influence will they have on the market?
(2) Suppose we’ve got a supply of 1000 excellent kidneys a month available for import from Yemen. What’s the import tariff going to be on a $30K kidney? Enough to protect our vital domestic kidney market? What if Yemen gets sanctioned?
(3) A donor says he’s willing to sell but only if it goes to a person from a particular race. Allowed or not allowed, and if not what is the remedy?
(4) We allow Organ Donor Visas. One imagines there will be a lot more applications if compensation is allowed. That’s fine with open border types like myself, but what will the immigration restrictionists have to say?
I assume, naturally, that Somin is eager to sell his kidney, and the only thing stopping him is the pesky law. The moment it's legal, he'll be first in line selling his kidney at whatever the market clearing rate is, which is obviously the fair price (and you're a meddling monster if you suggest otherwise).
Why, anything else would be a tacit admission that Somin has no intention of bearing the costs of this proposed policy himself, and fully intends them to be born by other people. And surely Somin would never do that, right?
Alternative snark: why don't you foot vote then? I'm sure you can find a country that'll look the other way as you sell your kidney.
Ah, utility value, not nominal value. To a poor man, $30,000 is better than a kidney, to an illustrious law prof, the kidney is worth more than the $30,000.
Bearing the costs of this proposed policy? Don't you mean reaping the benefits of this proposed policy?
That's right. Ilya's one of the elite. He expects to BUY the kidneys from the poor people who will be forced to "donate" them to make ends meet. He's not going to sell or donate one of his kidneys.
Um, being able to sell is just as much a benefit as being able to buy.
Ah yes, the special "benefit" of being forced into selling pieces of your body in order to get a little money.
Who would've thought?
Allowed, not forced. Are you illiterate?
Ohh... "Allowed to sell pieces of your body"....or face fiscal ruin and starvation. No possible coercion there.
I'm reminded of the story of the Idaho family who decided to have their daughter's 18th birthday in a plasma donation clinic. So the second she turned 18, she could sell off her plasma and contribute to the family.
I'm sure nothing like that would ever happen with legalizing organ sales. Young teenagers being coerced into selling their kidneys "for the family".
No. I meant what I said. That you disagree with me does not mean I do not know my own mind.
Bingo.
Hey, Iran has a national kidney market. Time for some foot voting to immigrate there. Perhaps Ilya's on the first plane over.
If Somin backs open borders for poor foreigners, on what principle could he seek to close the borders to parts of poor foreigners? A world-wide free market for kidneys will find copious supply, bid down to remarkably low wholesale prices. As with so many foreign-made pharmaceuticals, the particulars about sourcing will prove surprisingly hard to trace.
Highly xenophobic of him.
As much "fun" as Ilya's proposal is, I'm firmly against it, as commoditization of non-replaceable human organs severely impacts the integrity of human lives and the relative equality of humanity, ultimately threatening society.
Society rests on a fragile framework of equality. Despite differences in gender, race, and income, all people are created equal, and treated equally. Every citizen has a right to vote. Every man can be called up in the draft. We are a society, and on that society of trust, we can have trust in the markets and marketplaces.
Commoditization of non-replaceable organs severely impinges on that equality, trust, and society. Rather than have a system where people altruistically decide to donate an organ, instead we'd move to a society where we pay (exploit) people for their organs. That would have a resulting drop in organ donations.
Studies have demonstrated what would happen. Those who are poor would feel "forced" to sell their organs for money, while those who are rich would reap the benefits of a wider supply of "cheap" "young" organs for transplants. Ask yourself the last time Ilya or another rich lawyer felt the need to sell their plasma for money. Such a situation would increase the class divides within America.
Furthermore, we need to ask...where would it stop? If a Mexican illegal immigrant comes over the border to sell their kidney in El Paso, then return to Mexico one kidney lighter, but $2000 richer...would we stop that? What if just the kidney came over from Mexico...are we going to turn down a perfectly viable organ? What about the prisoners in the US. Shouldn't they repay their debt to society, and since many have these perfectly fine organs, why shouldn't they be forced to sell them to pay off their debt?
Those are merely the quickest, obvious questions, that have clear parallels in the current world. But let's go further with the maximalist type of "libertarian" concepts Ilya promotes.
If two parties should be allowed to make a contract to sell off organs, why restrict this to just kidneys? If someone really wants to sell of their heart after death, should we stop that? On what grounds? It's just an organ that they aren't using anymore.
Or why stop with organs? Why not a contract for indentured servitude? Shouldn't you or I be allowed to sign a contract that sells my labor for a year or four? I mean, it's really just a benefit to both parties.
Which studies are you referring to?
As far as I know, no one has ever done a study on the effects of allowing a free market in organ donations.
People have been studying altruism, capitalism, and the Venn diagram of the two forever.
The bottom-line is that it's hard for products to exist in both without one taking over. In fact, offering to pay someone for what they were about to give away for free is, in many cases, a good way to insult them and end the transaction (see, for example, sex).
So yeah. We have good reason to believe that if we allowed an organ market, that organ donation would collapse. Somin's counter-argument, of course, would be that we could just buy more.
There are several studies out of Iran.
I’ll take the organic free range grass-fed organs please. Also sustainably raised, no hormone treatments/birth control, and ethically harvested.
Alternative though: This just isn't going to happen.
It's too close to a number of other hot-button issues.
Abortion1. Sex-work2. Gender identity3. End-of-life decisions4. Hell, sodomy5.
(trying superscript tags, not sure if they'll work)
Simply put, bodily autonomy is controversial enough right now that this kind of reform isn't going to happen. You want to make it happen? You have to work on the culture first.
________
1Bodily autonomy to make medical decisions that some consider immoral.
2Bodily autonomy to sell the labor of your body, but only when it involves sex.
3Bans on transgender medical care for minors have the most support, but you're also seeing bills for banning all transgender medical care and a few proposals that would make cross-dressing illegal again.
4Terry Schiavo and "red" states getting involved in family tragedies and pulling the plug is becoming a bit of a meme, and that's before we even talk about opposition to physician-assisted suicide. Hell, in California the Catholic conference is opposing "liquid cremation" on the basis that since they don't think it's dignified enough for Catholics that my agnostic ass can't get turned into goop.
5Lawrence v. Texas (2003) was decided twenty years ago in a month. To celebrate this anniversary, Texas once against closed it's legislative session without ever bringing up the bill to repeal their unconstitutional law.
You are a conservative and I am not. Hence you trust your yuk response to lead you to moral decisions, and I distrust mine. Neither of us is wrong.
I do not believe that the "yuk" response is due to conscience. I think of it as, often enough, a no longer applicable hence atavistic evolutionary response. It's a brain reflex. Why should I pay attention to it, therefore? The nearest I've come to throwing up at the cinema was at a scene in Peter Jackson's early film "Dead/Alive" where a jet of pus lands in someone's soup, and he then eats the soup. What the hell has the yuk reaction got to do with my conscience?
There is no checksum on your gut. Trusting it reflexively as like some extra insightful sense you don't have conscious access to is a recipe for inconsistency, being unable to explain yourself to others, and general misery.
That is not to say you should be the dude claiming to be the only rational one in the room. But seek to understand yourself and your impulses and go from there.
mad_kalak, so shit is morally bad?
What’s your response to enslaving people and harvesting their organs? Is it "yuk"?