The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Progress on the End Kidney Deaths Act
This legislation could save many lives by giving tax credits to kidney donors. But it would not be as good as full legalization of organ sales.

The bipartisan End Kidney Deaths Act (EKDA) is making some progress in Congress. Dylan Matthews of Vox has a helpful summary of the legislation and its importance:
A few months ago, I wrote about a proposal called the End Kidney Deaths Act, which seeks to make sure that every one of the more than 135,000 Americans who get diagnosed with kidney failure every year has access to a kidney transplant.
Its method is simple: a federal tax credit worth $10,000 a year for five years, paid to anyone who donates a kidney to a stranger. It's the kind of thing that would've helped a lot when I donated a kidney back in 2016. Elaine Perlman, a fellow kidney donor who leads the Coalition to Modify NOTA, which is advocating for the act, estimates the measure will save 100,000 lives over the first decade it's enacted, based on conversations with transplant centers on how many surgeries they can perform with their current resources….
Since we last covered it, the Act has taken some huge strides forward. It has been introduced in the House of Representatives with two Republicans (Reps. Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Don Bacon of Nebraska) and two Democrats (Reps. Josh Harder of California and Joe Neguse of Colorado) in support of it. Dozens of supporters took to the Hill last week for a lobby day, meeting with staff for over 50 other senators and representatives.
As Matthews notes, EKDA is also generating some opposition. Still, it's good that it has gained so much support so quickly. In the rest of his article, Matthews effectively addresses a variety of criticisms of the Act, such as claims that payment for kidneys is too dangerous for donors, or that such compensation would exploit the poor. I agree with nearly all of his points.
I do have one reservation about the End Kidneys Act, which I laid out in a previous post on the subject:
The major shortcoming of the End Kidney Deaths Act is the implicit price control it creates. By setting the payment at $50,000, it prevents higher payments where that would be necessary to ensure adequate supply. While the Act would save thousands of lives, the estimates Matthews cites (some 6000 to 11,500 additional kidney donations per year) would still leave us many thousands of kidneys short, thereby still dooming many people to needless death, or at least additional years on kidney dialysis. This problem might be especially acute for patients whose genetics make it unusually difficult to find a matching donor. Conversely, if some potential donors are willing to sell for less than $50,000, there is no good reason to ban such transactions.
Full legalization of organ sales, with no price controls, would fix these problems. It's basic economics 101 that markets function best if prices are allowed to fluctuate in response to supply and demand. In a free market, insurance companies, medical care providers, and others have every incentive to pay what it takes, as the alternative of kidney dialysis is far more expensive. If necessary, the government could subsidize consumption by the poor, as it already does for kidney dialysis and many other health care expenses.
The big problem is that the End Kidney Deaths Act would not actually end preventable kidney deaths, though it would significantly reduce them. As discussed in my forthcoming article, "The Presumptive Case for Organ Markets," full legalization could save an estimated 47,000 lives per year, several times more than EKDA. It would also save many thousands more people from years of costly and painful life on kidney dialysis. In that article, I also address various objections in detail, emphasizing that, even if they have some validity, they cannot outweigh the enormous benefits of legalization.
Despite its limitations, EKDA would still be a major improvement over the status quo. The best should not be the enemy of the good, and I would be happy to see it pass. But full organ market legalization would be much better still.
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
"Don't tear down that fence until you know why it was put up."
The phrase is normally invoked for taboos with obscure origins, not legislation passed not quite 40 years ago.
40 years ago, if we had followed the first recommendation of the lead sponsor of the National Organ Transplant Act and provided tax credits for donors, we could have saved countless lives. The End Kidney Deaths Act tax credit is overdue. We could have saved so many people from experiencing the horror of a preventable deaths from kidney failure. Let's pass the End Kidney Deaths Act by Thanksgiving!
I find myself agreeing with el Capitan.
Organ donation is one of a few services that can be lawfully done gratis, but not for monetary compensation. The others that I can think of include voting, decisionmaking by government officials, and adults' voluntary performance of sexual acts (other than sperm/egg donation). Any thoughts as to what else fits those criteria?
you can't volunteer for money and still have it be volunteering.
That may seem trivial, but there are cases where you're stuck between allowing someone to do work for free and having to pay minimum wage and meet other requirements.
Wouldn't porn actors disprove part of your thesis? (And sexual therapy, um, workers as well--I have no idea what their official job title is; but it was an occupation that showed up often in 1980s TV dramas.)
The California Supreme Court, some decades ago, overturned an enterprising prostitution prosecution of porn actors on grounds that it violates the First Amendment when you make a film of it but not when you don’t.
I find myself surprised that “vanity press” film companies didn’t start up that would let people legally star in their own take-home porn films, which they would be free to take home (and immediately erase) if they wanted. Perhaps the risk of prosecution became so low that the cost of pretending to make a film for legal purposes just wasn’t worth it.
Unlicensed medical treatments, if they can be deemed faith healing and don't rely on drugs. Thanks to Ralph Fucetola for finding this loophole in at least one state (NJ).
Keeping a secret, i.e. not charging blackmail. Hard to say whether that really counts as a service rather than forbearance from action.
Endorsement of a product or service. It has to be labeled as an advertisement if compensated, but no disclaimer is needed if it's not.
Giving someone a ride, in jurisdictions that require special licensure if done for pay.
In some jurisdictions you're allowed to give away some kinds of food that would require licensure if you were charging to do it. However, I'm not sure whether you'd consider this a service or transfer of a product.
Many types of unlicensed participant amusement, such as access to your swimming pool.
In many of these cases the thing can lawfully be done for monetary compensation with the appropriate license or permit, but not without.
When my wife's kidneys failed, she was very fortunate that a wonderful friend of ours was willing to donate one of her kidneys. (I had the wrong blood type and couldn't give her one of mine.) But people like our friend are few and far between, and there are nowhere near enough "cadaver kidneys" (kidneys of deceased persons who consented to donate their organs before death, or whose family has consented) to accommodate all the people who need them -- most people die when they are too old for a transplant, or under circumstances in which an transplant is not feasible. I had not heard of EKDA before this; it's a wonderful idea, and I hope it is enacted. While Ilya's approach might be even better, it's currently politically infeasible. EKDA is a great first step.
I was reminded of this topic when I saw https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/04/alabama-man-death-wrong-organ-surgery (and the arguments in recent Open Threads here about abortion laws in Georgia relative to supposedly extremely uncommon complications from incredibly safe drugs). If those two regrettable deaths in Georgia speak to what laws should say about discretionary abortion, doesn't William Bryan's death speak to what laws should say about discretionary organ removals?
There are some 2,200 prisoners on "Death Rows" around the Nation, given that some may already have bad Beans, that's still around 4,000, not to mention Islet Cells, Cornea's, Livers, Hearts, and at 15L of CO2 per hr (that's 30,000L/hr for all 2,200) would help reduce the Global Warning (that's not happening)
Frank
$50,000?
Over 5 years?
Almost enough to buy a shitty car.
And it’s not just the pain, loss of 50% of your renal function (but hey! You lower your risk of Kidney Cancer by 50% ! Once heard a Transplant use that as a reason to be an Organ Donor, funny how few Docs/Nurses check the “Donor” box) and if J-hay does hit you with his cancer stick, hope you like spending 12 hrs a week in a dialysis clinic
The Beans play a huge role in regulating Blood Pressure, which usually goes up after losing one, so now you’ve got a whole new problem to deal with, and that is often the cause of the kidney failure to start with. Beans also secrete Erythropoetin, which you need if you like having Red Blood Cells (I do regularly donate my rare AB(neg) and it’s the left handed variety which makes it even rarer, and not for Shekels, but because I’m a nice guy, and research shows regular phlebotomy reduces incidence of congestive heart failiure (and I love the juice and cookies at the Red Cross)
Frank
I would suggest you continue to search for a solution that would encourage donation by people who don't have a $10,000/yr tax bill.
There's another aspect to kidney (or lung, or anything else with two organs) donations: it reduces the donor's odds of surviving damage to the remaining organ. It may be a very slight risk, but it's still there.
How about when you donate, the contract include putting you at the head of the list for a donation if your remaining organ fails? Including free surgery etc. Add it as in insurance premium you can pay for; if a kidney transplant costs $100,000 and the odds are 1:100, then pay $1000 to be put at top of the list.
I've wondered sometimes about this. I'm sure others have too.
That's what I was thinking. I thought donors with only one already were put to the head of the line if they needed a new one, actually.
Thanks. Been a long time since I looked into it, not a high priority. But something to bear in mind.
When a family friend donated a kidney to my wife, we were told that the friend would go to the top of the list if she ever needed one. (She hasn't needed one.) That was about 18 years ago, but I assume the rule is still the same.
I have consistently opposed Ilya’s proposals, and I have significant reservations about this one. I’m not completely decided either way on it.
I’ll point out, however, that something I consider an advantage is that it is effectively socialist. The government and only the government makes all payments. This keeps the rich from buying up lots of spare kidneys just in case while it’s impossible for the poor to ever have one,
There are matters for which markets don’t work. I think this is one.
I think one of Professor Somin’s biggest weaknesses is his fixation on rationalism in opposition to empiricism, his beginning his thought with fixed beliefs assumed true and then deducting logically from there. Empiricism leads to intellectual humility. Fixed intellectual systems of the sort humans tend to devise just don’t tend to adequately explain the world around us. They work only partially. They can work very well in limited areas but fail miserably outside then. We don’t have a completely adequate theory of even mathematics and physics; our theories of human affairs are woefully inadequate to predict even the short-term future.
Market economics works partially. Better to enter things with some humility and try to understand where it works best and where it tends to muck things up, rather than come in with ideological blinkers flashing and insist that there is only one true way.
Professor Somin has improved over the years. Years ago, he was comparing government tax and spending programs to Soviet gulags, ideologically utterly opposed to government being involved in ANYTHING it’s possible to do privately. Today, he is willing to support a government program as better than doing nothing. I see that as considerable intellectual progress.
As I’ve said many times before, it’s absolutely absurd, it’s just unrestrained rhetoric, to compare relatively minor modifications to pure market capitalism like taxes and government welfare programs to much more excruciating impositions on liberty like Soviet gulags or China’s cultural revolution.
Wouldn't expect a bunch of laymen to understand the current Organ Donor system is Crooked as Hillary Rodman, Mickey Mantle didn't meet the Liver Transplant requirements for multiple reasons, amazingly, moves up past hundreds of other who did, because hmm, he was Mickey Mantle?? Died 2 months after his transplant, ironically he would have lived longer if they'd followed procedure and just did palliative treatment.
Also the lab values used to measure Kidney function are "rigged" in favor of Afro-Amuricans, 2 patients with identical BUN and Creatinine values, but the Afro-Amurican gets a lower EGFR. It's as ridiculous as the Recommendation that Blacks start getting Colonoscopies at age 45 while everyone else has to wait until 50 (The joke is, with "CPT" if the recommend it age 45, maybe they'll get one by the time they're 50)
Frank
Thank you for the 2 articles about the End Kidney Deaths Act (HR 9275). My name is Elaine Perlman, and I am leading the advocacy for the passage of the EKDA and have met with 265 Congressional offices this year. The response has been very positive.
The plan is to demonstrate that compensating living kidney donors works well to save both those will die from the kidney shortage and billions of tax dollars in this 10 year pilot program. Then we will advocate for the refundable tax credit for all kidney donors, ending the kidney shortage so that no one will die while waiting for a life-saving kidney transplant.
If we had an open market as Ilya would prefer, kidney donors would be getting different amounts for the same good, being paid different amounts for the same time consuming, painful and stressful work of donation. The funds they would receive would be dependent the wealth level of the recipient and the negotiating skills of the donor. This is not ethical. It favors the wealthy and would not achieve our primary aim: to save those most likely to die from the kidney shortage, those waiting the longest on the list who have no one healthy enough to donate on their behalf.
Of 100 people who step forward to donate, only 2 actually donate. Most are medically disqualified.
Kidney donors live on average longer than the general population. Few Americans would pass the transplant centers rigorous screening qualification process.
The EKDA will provide the funds from the place where the money is being saved, the Federal Treasury. It's estimated that every time someone moves from dialysis ($50B annual cost) to transplant, taxpayers save around a half million dollars.
Both the medical community and the American public are in favor of donor compensation.
We are starting small with a pilot program for compensation, something that is supported by the American Medical Association. Twice the members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons indicated that they are in support of pilot programs for donor compensation. The majority of Americans are in support of compensating living organ donors.
Ilya, reach out to me at Elaine@WaitlistZero.org
I would appreciate connecting about this. I would even be open to a debate of the EKDA vs. an open market
Let's pass the End Kidney Deaths Act in 2024 to save up to 100,000 American lives and $37 billion in taxes by year ten!
So it is only ethical to pay kidney donors if the government pays? How is that? Would that work for other problems? Could we solve the prostitution problem by having the government pay all the prostitutes?
At least we know you didn’t put much effort into trying to understand the other side’s position.
From my end, it addresses some but by no means all ethical problems. Teo key ones with a private approach are that the poor, indeed anyone but the wealthy, are completely shut out. Also the wealthy, indeed speculators, could pile up spares to create shortages to increase prices while other people die.
For many kinds of necessities like food, education, pensions, and more, government can potentially provide a basic floor while private enterprise supplements to give those who can afford it more of what they really want. But organs don’t come in basic and luxury models. Government can’t provide a basic organ while private enterprise handles the luxury organ as is done with food, education, retirement, etc. Organs don’t work that way. You either get an organ or you don’t.
The idea that a market-based allocation would be fair in any ordinary human sense, comprehensible to those who haven’t desensitized their humanity, is simply ludicrous.
You might as well argue that absolute monarchy is fair becaise princes earn their power over others. A theist could at least argue that princes get their power by divine right. But Professor Somin is not a theist. So that argument for why it’s fair for oligarchs to take all and others to die watching them isn’t open to him.
Elaine, best of luck. Donor compensation is the way to go.
I personally would not be interested in a tax credit; I'd want cash, tax-free for my kidney, or liver lobe.
This proposal (Ilya's legalize all organ sales) would likely be a disaster.
Selling plasma for monetary renumeration is currently problematic in the US…especially at the US-Mexican border. Start legalizing the sale of organs, and you’re going to see a lot of 1-kidney-ed Mexicans…
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202205/1265158.shtml
A government subsidy doesn't sound very libertarian. Call me confused!
(Or maybe, libertarians are just like everyone else, equally unprincipled, willing to use any tool, including government, to get what they want.)