Ethical issues related to the provision or denial of renal services to non-citizens

Renal Replacement Therapy for Undocumented Immigrants: Current Models with Medical, Financial, and Physician Perspectives-a Narrative Review

Renal replacement therapy is guaranteed for all US citizens with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Undocumented immigrants with ESRD are a particularly vulnerable subset of renal failure patients. There is no federal legislation for these patients except for the requirement to treat them during "emergency medical conditions" and federal legislation excluding them from the guarantee of renal replacement therapy described above. Different states have developed different methods for dealing with this problem, with variation in management even addressed on a center by center basis. This review of the original studies published in the literature reveals the medical, ethical, and financial problems with this situation. These patients frequently have delayed presentation to care, poor access to routine care, increased complications, increased utilization of services, and increased morbidity and mortality in an emergent dialysis model compared to chronic outpatient care. They present an ethical dilemma for practitioners who know they are providing substandard care and occasionally making decisions on how to allocate resources. Emergent dialysis is associated with inadequate reimbursement, increased threat to sustained unemployment, and an overburdening of our healthcare infrastructure. This practice puts patients at risk, places an unfair ethical burden on providers and is financially unsustainable. Special considerations described for kidney transplant and peritoneal dialysis are considered and considerations for a new model are reviewed in the paper. Ultimately accommodations must be made with the input of government, healthcare practitioners, and facilities needs to be reached to protect these vulnerable patients.

Sharing organs with foreign nationals

Organs for transplantation are an absolute scarcity throughout the world, and many countries do not offer transplantation. Developed countries with transplant programs receive requests to list foreign nationals for transplantation. Any national standard deserves justification by a thorough exploration of the issues. In this article, the issues regarding organ transplantation for foreign nationals in Canada are explored. Currently Canada has no policy on listing foreign nationals for transplantation. Three topics are reviewed: (1) arguments for and against the transplantation of organs from deceased donors to foreign nationals, (2) relevant legislation and position statements, and (3) relevant practices in other countries. Finally, practical policy options are suggested. This article's analysis of the issues will provide guidance for health care professionals and policy makers in Canada and developed countries exploring listing foreign nationals for transplantation.

Sharing Organs with Foreign Nationals

Organs for transplantation are an absolute scarcity throughout the world, and many countries do not offer transplantation. Developed countries with transplant programs receive requests to list foreign nationals for transplantation. Any national standard deserves justification by a thorough exploration of the issues. In this article, the issues regarding organ transplantation for foreign nationals in Canada are explored. Currently Canada has no policy on listing foreign nationals for transplantation. Three topics are reviewed: (1) arguments for and against the transplantation of organs from deceased donors to foreign nationals, (2) relevant legislation and position statements, and (3) relevant practices in other countries. Finally, practical policy options are suggested. This article's analysis of the issues will provide guidance for health care professionals and policy makers in Canada and developed countries exploring listing foreign nationals for transplantation.

The initiation of dialysis in undocumented aliens: the impact on a public hospital system

BACKGROUND

Health and dialysis care of undocumented aliens often falls on public hospitals because the majority of these patients are uninsured and cannot afford private medical care. With an estimate of greater than 5 million undocumented aliens, the rate of such patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) approaches 1,000 patients/y. Although much attention has been focused on the financial and political impact of this group, little has been published on health care issues.

METHODS

Records of 55 undocumented alien patients initiating dialysis therapy from 2 public hospitals in the New York City metropolitan area were reviewed and compared with those of 223 American citizens. We interviewed patients in their native language to assess what predialysis care they had received.

RESULTS

Undocumented aliens were primarily Hispanic (58%), poorly educated, and in the United States for 5.11 +/- 0.62 years before dialysis therapy. Four percent were aware of their renal disease before immigration, and fewer than one third had any pre-ESRD care. Undocumented aliens had greater creatinine levels and blood pressures and lower calculated glomerular filtration rates compared with Americans. Their admission lengths of stay and total costs for their first dialysis treatments were greater than those of American patients. Undocumented aliens were twice as likely to be employed.

CONCLUSION

Undocumented aliens do not appear to migrate here for medical reasons, suggested by their greater employment rate. They are less inclined to seek pre-ESRD care and present relatively late for dialysis therapy. This study highlights the paucity of pre-ESRD care in these patients and in lower income communities in general. Providing early health care to undocumented aliens would avoid more expensive medical care later on.

Rationing dialysis in the United States: possible implications of capitated systems

The application of managed care to dialysis raises concerns that dialysis will be rationed in the United States. Rationing means the implicit or explicit denial of beneficial or marginally beneficial medical treatment as a result of insufficient resources to provide treatment to all. In this era of cost containment and budget cutting, rationing appears inevitable in the end-stage renal disease program because of its continued growth in numbers and cost and because many are questioning the benefit of dialysis to certain groups of patients. Rationing according to social worth, ability to pay, or age is not ethically justifiable, but it is justified to ration according to medical benefit. There is an important role for guidelines developed with broad input from patients, families, health care professionals, ethicists, health policy experts, and payers. Consensus statements exist in the literature, and the nephrology community is in the process of developing practice guidelines that will be available for future use. In the meantime, managed care companies should look to broader community input in the form of consensus statements and community dialogue. Managed care companies will need ethics committees to ensure that their policies and procedures for rationing are fair, principled, and subject to review and appeal.