Opinions of Health Care Personnel Regarding Disincentives and Incentives for Living Kidney Donation at a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Transplant societies continue to actively concentrate on increasing rates of living kidney donation (LKD) to bridge the gap between individuals awaiting transplantation and the number of kidneys available. A widely discussed strategy to increase living donation rates is the provision of incentives and removal of disincentives. Though opinions of the public regarding this strategy have been studied, the opinions of health care providers, including younger professionals, are less clear. We studied the opinions of medical students and other health care providers on strategies to increase LKD to determine if opinions were different among those < 25 or ≥ 25 years of age.

METHODS

A simple cross-sectional survey was conducted at an academic medical center. Participants included medical students and employees in Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and the Organ Transplantation Center. Pearson's χ² and Fisher's exact test were conducted on the responses regarding disincentives and incentives to determine whether opinions differed based on age.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-four participants completed the survey. There was no statistical difference in opinions between groups on reimbursing transportation costs, loss of wages, or childcare costs, but those aged ≥ 25 were more agreeable with covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25 (96.5% vs 90.7%, P = .009). Respondents < 25 years old were more willing to donate a kidney for a financial incentive (P = .0002) accepting a median amount of $25,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care personnel broadly support removing financial disincentives for living kidney donation, and those ≥ 25 were more in favor of covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25. Those < 25 years old were more likely to accept financial incentives towards donating their kidney compared to those ≥ 25 years.

Focus group study of public opinion about paying living kidney donors in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The unmet demand for kidney transplantation has generated intense controversy about introducing incentives for living kidney donors to increase donation rates. Such debates may affect public perception and acceptance of living kidney donation. This study aims to describe the range and depth of public opinion on financial reimbursement, compensation, and incentives for living kidney donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Twelve focus groups were conducted with 113 participants recruited from the general public in three Australian states in February 2013. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: creating ethical impasses (commodification of the body, quandary of kidney valuation, pushing moral boundaries), corrupting motivations (exposing the vulnerable, inevitable abuse, supplanting altruism), determining justifiable risk (compromising kidney quality, undue harm, accepting a confined risk, trusting protective mechanisms, right to autonomy), driving access (urgency of organ shortage, minimizing disadvantage, guaranteeing cost-efficiency, providing impetus, counteracting black markets), and honoring donor deservingness (fairness and reason, reassurance and rewards, merited recompense). Reimbursement and justifiable recompense are considered by the Australian public as a legitimate way of supporting donors and reducing disadvantage. Financial payment beyond reimbursement is regarded as morally reprehensible, with the potential for exploitative commercialism. Some contend that regulated compensation could be a defensible strategy to increased donation rates provided that mechanisms are in place to protect donors.

CONCLUSIONS

The perceived threat to community values of human dignity, goodwill, and fairness suggests that there could be strong public resistance to any form of financial inducements for living kidney donors. Policy priorities addressing the removal of disincentives may be more acceptable to the public.

Does financial compensation for living kidney donation change willingness to donate?

The potential use of financial compensation to increase living kidney donation rates remains controversial in potentially introducing undue inducement of vulnerable populations to donate. This cross-sectional study assessed amounts of financial compensation that would generate motivation and an undue inducement to donate to family/friends or strangers. Individuals leaving six Departments of Motor Vehicles were surveyed. Of the 210 participants who provided verbal consent (94% participation rate), respondents' willingness to donate would not change (70%), or would increase (29%) with compensation. Median lowest amounts of financial compensation for which participants would begin to consider donating a kidney were $5000 for family/friends, and $10,000 for strangers; respondents reporting $0 for family/friends (52%) or strangers (26%) were excluded from analysis. Median lowest amounts of financial compensation for which participants could no longer decline (perceive an undue inducement) were $50,000 for family/friends, and $100,000 for strangers; respondents reporting $0 for family/friends (44%) or strangers (23%) were excluded from analysis. The two most preferred forms of compensation included: direct payment of money (61%) and paid leave (21%). The two most preferred uses of compensation included: paying off debt (38%) and paying nonmedical expenses associated with the transplant (29%). Findings suggest tolerance for, but little practical impact of, financial compensation. Certain compensation amounts could motivate the public to donate without being perceived as an undue inducement.

Impact of gender and professional education on attitudes towards financial incentives for organ donation: results of a survey among 755 students of medicine and economics in Germany

Background

There is an ongoing expert debate with regard to financial incentives in order to increase organ supply. However, there is a lacuna of empirical studies on whether citizens would actually support financial incentives for organ donation.

Methods

Between October 2008 and February 2009 a quantitative survey was conducted among German students of medicine and economics to gain insights into their point of view regarding living and deceased organ donation and different forms of commercialization (n = 755).

Results

The average (passive) willingness to donate is 63.5% among medical students and 50.0% among students of economics (p = 0.001), while only 24.1% of the respondents were actually holding an organ donor card. 11.3% of students of economics had signed a donor card, however, the number is significantly higher among students of medicine (31.9%, p < 0.001). Women held donor cards significantly more often (28.6%) than men (19.4%, p = 0.004). The majority of students were against direct payments as incentives for deceased and living donations. Nevertheless, 37.5% of the respondents support the idea that the funeral expenses of deceased organ donors should be covered. Women voted significantly less often for the coverage of expenses than men (women 31.6%, men 44.0%, p = 0.003). The number of those in favor of allowing to sell one’s organs for money (living organ donation) was highest among students of economics (p = 0.034).

Conclusion

Despite a generally positive view on organ donation the respondents refuse to consent to commercialization, but are in favor of removing disincentives or are in favor of indirect models of reward.

Policy perspectives: international survey of nephrologists' perceptions of and attitudes towards rewards and compensation for kidney donation

The challenge to resolve the gap between supply and demand for organs is a global phenomenon. The possible solutions can invariably involve a range of ethical and moral dilemmas. This is certainly the case when considering rewards and compensation for kidney donation. In their thought provoking study, Ghahramami et al. provide the perspectives of medical professionals on these issues. The views of nephrologists concerning rewards and compensation chime with views of the public, which have been highlighted in many previous studies. Rewards and compensation for organ donation are perceived, by some, as barriers to successful organ donation transplant programmes; whereas others view them as potential facilitators to increasing organ donation rates. It is interesting to note that two-thirds of survey respondents believe that introducing some kind of reward or offering compensation would lead to an increase in organ donation. This finding is not unique to this study and is evident in many public surveys where respondents have expressed a belief that offering some form of incentive would have a positive impact on organ donation rates. Disappointingly, the debates concerning the type of reward or compensation and its potential impact on donation rates continue to take place in a relatively 'evidence base-free' vacuum. What is abundantly clear is that many lives continue to be lost in many countries due to a lack of suitable organs for transplant. What is less clear is which forms of reward and compensation actually have an impact on donation rates and whether they positively impact the life experiences of donors, recipients and their families. This level of evidence- base is urgently required.

Public awareness and attitudes to living organ donation: systematic review and integrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The deceased-donor organ shortage has driven widespread adoption of living-donor transplantation. Yet, public views on living donation are not well understood. This study aims to synthesize studies on public awareness and attitudes toward living organ donation.

METHODS

Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to September 2012. Summary estimates from survey data were obtained by random effects meta-analysis. Qualitative descriptive synthesis of each study was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-seven studies involving 34,610 respondents were included. The proportion of respondents aware of living organ donation was 76.7% (4 studies, n=3248; 95% confidence interval, 46.2%-97.0%; I=99.7%). The majority were in favor of living directed donation (85.5% (11 studies, n=15,836; 95% confidence interval, 81.6%-89.6%; I=98%), with recipient and community benefit as the rationale provided. However, barriers included fear of surgical and health risks, lack of knowledge, respect for cultural norms, financial loss, distrust in hospitals, and avoiding recipient indebtedness. The public voiced concern about possible risks or an obligatory pressure exerted on the donor. Many supported reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, paid leave, wait-listing priority, health insurance, and donor acknowledgment. There was strong opposition to financial incentives, which they believed risked exploitation and inequity and diminished voluntary altruistic donation.

CONCLUSIONS

The public is generally supportive of living donation and articulated important equity and ethical considerations for protecting the health and safety of living donors. This supports increased public engagement and strengthening of a shared view among professionals and the public in living donation practice and policy.

Non-organ donors' attitudes toward incentives

Malaysians indicating that they did not intend to become organ donors upon their death were surveyed regarding interest in non-fungible financial incentives to be granted to surviving family members. Among the 730 (56% of the total sample of 1311) indicating unwillingness to be donors, 29.6% (216/730) subsequently indicated that they would be willing donors if the government introduced policies that, upon their death, "rewarded your (their) family with incentives for your (their) deeds." Among the 69% (504/730) who insisted that they would not become organ donor even with incentive, nearly 80% (404/501) of them were able to identify relevant incentives they thought should be provided by the state to those who make organ donations upon death. The majority of both groups preferred the state provide medical benefits to a surviving family member, suggesting this may be an attractive policy option for the state to raise the deceased organ donation pool.

Public attitudes to financial incentive models for organs: a literature review suggests that it is time to shift the focus from 'financial incentives' to 'reciprocity'

Waiting lists for organs have stimulated interest in the use of financial incentives for organ donation (FIs), but the literature does not contain an adequate overview of studies of public attitudes toward this mode of procurement. We conducted a literature review of international peer-reviewed research published between 2002 and 2012 on how members of the public position themselves toward FIs. We identified and analyzed 23 studies using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and cross-reference search. The search included whole organs, donation, quantitative and empirical qualitative social scientific studies on, public attitudes (excluding professionals and medical students). The review reveals a broad divergence of public opinions on financial incentives. However, quantitative studies showed a low overall level of acceptance of payment for organs in living donation (LD); only a slightly higher one for deceased donation (DD); and a general preference for alternative forms, such as removal of disincentives or expressions of social reciprocity. Across different national and methodological settings we observed a considerable preference of noncommercial forms. This does not preclude the opportunity to consider various types of acknowledgement of economic value given in return for the organ. This provides reason to shift the focus from incentives to reciprocity.

Attitudes toward strategies to increase organ donation: views of the general public and health professionals

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The acceptability of financial incentives for organ donation is contentious. This study sought to determine (1) the acceptability of expense reimbursement or financial incentives by the general public, health professionals involved with organ donation and transplantation, and those with or affected by kidney disease and (2) for the public, whether financial incentives would alter their willingness to consider donation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Web-based survey administered to members of the Canadian public, health professionals, and people with or affected by kidney disease asking questions regarding acceptability of strategies to increase living and deceased kidney donation and willingness to donate a kidney under various financial incentives.

RESULTS

Responses were collected from 2004 members of the Canadian public October 11-18, 2011; responses from health professionals (n=339) and people with or affected by kidney disease (n=268) were collected during a 4-week period commencing October 11, 2011. Acceptability of one or more financial incentives to increase deceased and living donation was noted in >70% and 40% of all groups, respectively. Support for monetary payment for living donors was 45%, 14%, and 27% for the public, health professionals, and people with or affected by kidney disease, respectively. Overall, reimbursement of funeral expenses for deceased donors and a tax break for living donors were the most acceptable.

CONCLUSION

The general public views regulated financial incentives for living and deceased donation to be acceptable. Future research needs to examine the impact of financial incentives on rates of deceased and living donors.

In defense of a regulated system of compensation for living donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The organ shortage is the major problem in kidney transplantation today. Despite aggressive organ procurement efforts, the supply of donated kidneys, living and deceased, has not matched the growing demand; as a consequence, more and more qualified candidates are suffering on dialysis and then dying before being transplanted. Herein, we provide justification for a regulated system of compensation for donation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main argument in favor of compensation is simple-financial incentives will increase donation, so fewer transplant candidates will suffer and die while waiting. In addition, development of a regulated system of compensation is the most effective means of crippling the core economic support for transplant tourism. Because dialysis is so much more expensive than a transplant, compensated donation could be cost-neutral to the healthcare system. Importantly, opinion polls suggest that the public would support compensation. As uncompensated kidney donation is widely accepted, persuasive arguments against compensation must explain why such a system would be morally distinguishable from uncompensated donation.

SUMMARY

We suggest that the potential advantages of a regulated system of compensation for donation far outweigh any potential disadvantages. It is time to advocate for a change in the law so that trials can be done.

Community Preferences for the Allocation & Donation of Organs--the PAraDOx Study

Background

Transplantation is the treatment of choice for people with severe organ failure. However, demand substantially exceeds supply of suitable organs; consequently many people wait months, or years to receive an organ. Reasons for the chronic shortage of deceased organ donations are unclear; there appears to be no lack of 'in principle' public support for organ donation.

Methods/Design

The PAraDOx Study examines community preferences for organ donation policy in Australia. The aims are to 1) determine which factors influence decisions by individuals to offer their organs for donation and 2) determine the criteria by which the community deems the allocation of donor organs to be fair and equitable. Qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to assess community preferences for organ donation and allocation.

Focus group participants from the general community, aged between 18-80, will be purposively sampled to ensure a variety of cultural backgrounds and views on organ donation. Each focus group will include a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique. Focus groups of organ recipients, their families, and individuals on a transplant waiting list will also be conducted.

Using the qualitative work, a discrete choice study will be designed to quantitatively assess community preferences. Discrete choice methods are based on the premise that goods and services can be described in terms of a number of separate attributes. Respondents are presented with a series of choices where levels of attributes are varied, and a mathematical function is estimated to describe numerically the value respondents attach to different options. Two community surveys will be conducted in approximately 1000 respondents each to assess community preferences for organ donation and allocation. A mixed logit model will be used; model results will be expressed as parameter estimates (β) and the odds of choosing one option over an alternative. Trade-offs between attributes will also be calculated.

Discussion

By providing a better understanding of current community preferences in relation to organ donation and allocation, the PAraDOx study will highlight options for firstly, increasing the rate of organ donation and secondly, allow for more transparent and equitable policies in relation to organ allocation.

For love or money? Attitudes toward financial incentives among actual living kidney donors

Due to lengthening waiting lists for kidney transplantation, a debate has emerged as to whether financial incentives should be used to stimulate living kidney donation. In recent surveys among the general public approximately 25% was in favor of financial incentives while the majority was opposed or undecided. In the present study, we investigated the opinion of living kidney donors regarding financial incentives for living kidney donation. We asked 250 living kidney donors whether they, in retrospect, would have wanted a financial reward for their donation. We also investigated whether they were in favor of using financial incentives in a government-controlled system to stimulate living anonymous donation. Additionally, the type of incentive deemed most appropriate was also investigated. In general almost half (46%) of the study population were positive toward introducing financial incentives for living donors. The majority (78%) was not in favor of any kind of reward for themselves as they had donated out of love for the recipient or out of altruistic principles. Remarkably, 60% of the donors were in favor of a financial incentive for individuals donating anonymously. A reduced premium or free health insurance was the preferred incentive.

Sociological and ethical issues in transplant commercialism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

'Global transplant commercialism' (practices and policies involving international trade in organs from living vendors, e.g., 'transplant tourism') is currently subjected to unprecedented criticism. In parallel, the debate around 'local transplant commercialism' (practices and policies that confine trade in organs from living vendors to national markets or economic unions) is heating up. In an attempt to assess the potential outcomes of these trends, this article reviews and discusses some sociological and ethical issues, ending with a proposal for a reinvigorated anticommercialist strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current international campaign against global transplant commercialism is conducted by an ad hoc alliance between strange bedfellows, proponents of local transplant commercialism on the one hand and opponents of any transplant commercialism on the other. Disparities in the rigor of the respective ethical discourses, the expanding list of precedents of legitimized commerce in the human body, and the political economy of transplantation, all suggest that the former have the upper hand.

SUMMARY

Recent achievements in the struggle against international organ trafficking may not herald the abolition of transplant commercialism but rather presage its reconfiguration in deglobalized forms. In light of such a prospect, those who wish to prevent the pervasive commodification of the human body from entering the gates of transplant medicine should consider devising a new, perhaps more radical, strategy.