Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up

Information and Resources

The Organ Waiting List System Could Be Made More Fair

By
WebMD Health News

Jan. 14, 2000 (Boston) -- Approximately 4,000 Americans die each year while waiting for an organ transplant, but a proposal for revamping the current system could help ensure that the most critically ill patients get top priority, say researchers from the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

Although some critics have expressed concern that distributing organs across wider geographic areas or larger populations might make the current organ shortage even worse or harm economically disadvantaged patients, a review of records on about 33,000 patients on waiting lists for liver transplants suggests that a broader-based system would be more fair, write Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, and other members of the IOM's committee on organ procurement and transplantation. The IOM was commissioned by Congress in October of 1998 to study whether organ procurement regulations proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would result in a more equitable distribution of donor organs.

The IOM committee members determined that under the current system, which is composed of 63 nationwide organ procurement organizations (OPOs), organs that could go to "status 1" patients -- those who are expected to die within 1 week without a transplant -- frequently go to patients who are less critically ill, including those who are not at risk for imminent death. Specifically, the IOM researchers found that only about half of status 1 patients received organs, 9% died while on the waiting list, and the remainder were shifted to other status categories such as "too ill to undergo transplant." The IOM report appears in the Jan. 14 issue of the journal Science.

"The system is not currently efficient, because in the smaller-volume, smaller population-area organ procurement organizations, the rate of transplantation of the status 2b and 3 patients, the less severely ill patients, is much, much higher than it is in the larger areas," says Gibbons, professor of biostatistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "What happens is that patients who are status 1 or 2a are in severe medical need for a transplant, but somebody who is a status 3 in a small OPO is getting that organ."

Under the regulation in question, proposed by the HHS in April 1998, the current system of regional organ distribution would be revised, as the regulation states, to "assure that allocation of organs will be based on common medical criteria, not accidents of geography." The "Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network: Final Rule," or "Final Rule" for short, calls for enhanced federal oversight of organ procurement, increased public access to important information, and shifting of emphasis away from geographical considerations to medical needs.

But implementation of the Final Rule has been held up by political wrangling. In October 1998, Congress suspended the regulation for one year and asked the IOM specifically to study the issue and come up with recommendations. Then on Dec. 17, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the "Ticket-to-Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999," which, against his administration's wishes, included a 90-day moratorium on implementation of the Final Rule that had been slipped into the legislation by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.

WebMD Video: Now Playing

Click here to wach video: Dirty Truth About Hand Washing

Which sex is the worst about washing up? Why is it so important? We’ve got the dirty truth on how and when to wash your hands.

Click here to watch video: Dirty Truth About Hand Washing