Text of the new EU regulations on Substances of Human Origin

 Kim Krawiec points me to this newly published document, with the 'final' regulations intended to prevent compensation of donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO), such as blood plasma.  How this will effect the five EU member states that compensate plasma donors remains to be seen, as these regulations are now scheduled to go into effect only in 2027.

REGULATION (EU) 2024/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL … on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application 

After a quick read, I think these are the sections of the new regulations that are most relevant to their elements of market design, and compensation to donors.

(4)… safety standards are to be based on the fundamental principle that the human body or its parts as such are not to be a source of financial gain.

…

(26) Solid organs are excluded from the definition of SoHO for the purposes of this Regulation and, thus, from the scope of this Regulation. Their donation and transplantation are significantly different, determined, inter alia, by the effect of ischemia in the organs, and are regulated in a dedicated legal framework, set out in Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

…

(57) Article 3 of the Charter prohibits making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain. The use of financial incentives for SoHO donations can have an impact on the quality and safety of SoHO, posing risks to the health of both SoHO donors and recipients and therefore to the protection of human health. Without affecting the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy, and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, SoHO donation should be voluntary and unpaid, and be founded on the principles of altruism of the SoHO donor and solidarity between donor and recipient. Such solidarity should be built from the local and regional levels up to the national and Union levels, aiming for self-sufficiency of critical SoHO, and spreading the responsibility for donation evenly across the Union population to the extent possible. Voluntary and unpaid SoHO donation contributes to the respect for human dignity and to protecting the most vulnerable persons in society. It also contributes to high safety standards for SoHO and therefore to the protection of human health, increasing public trust in donation systems. AM\P9_AMA(2023)0250(244-244)_EN.docx 49/306 PE748.903v01-00 EN United in diversity EN 

(58) It is recognised, including by the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics in its ‘Guide for the implementation of the principle of prohibition of financial gain with respect to the human body and its parts from living or deceased donors’ from March 2018, that while financial gain should be avoided, compensation should be able to be acceptable to prevent SoHO donors being financially disadvantaged by their donation. Therefore, compensation to remove any such risk is deemed appropriate as long as it endeavours to guarantee financial neutrality and does not result in a financial gain for the SoHO donor or constitute an incentive that would cause a SoHO donor to not disclose relevant aspects of their medical or behavioural history or to donate in any way that could pose risks to their own health and to that of prospective recipients, in particular by donating more frequently than is allowed. It should be possible for compensation to consist of the reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with SoHO donation or of making good of any losses, preferably based on quantifiable criteria, associated with the donation of SoHO.

Whatever the form of compensation, including through financial and nonfinancial means, compensation schemes should not result in competition between SoHO entities for SoHO donors, including cross-border competition and in particular between SoHO entities collecting SoHO for different purposes, such as the manufacture of medicinal products versus human application as a SoHO preparation. The setting of an upper limit for compensation at national level and the application of compensation that is financially neutral for the SoHO donor have the effect of removing any incentive for SoHO donors to donate to one SoHO entity rather than another, significantly mitigating the risk that compensation differences might result in competition between SoHO entities, in particular between public and private sectors. It should be possible for Member States to delegate the setting of such conditions to independent bodies, in accordance with national law. Prospective SoHO donors should be able to receive information regarding the possibility of having their expenses reimbursed or of receiving compensation for other losses, through information tools, such as website 'Question and Answer' pages, information email addresses, telephone lines or other such neutral channels of factual information dissemination. However, because of the risk of undermining the voluntary and unpaid character of SoHO donation, references to compensation schemes should not be included in advertising, promotion and publicity activities that form part of SoHO donor recruitment campaigns, for example using advertising billboards or posters, on television, newspaper, magazine or social media advertisements or similar.

(59) SoHO entities should not offer financial incentives or inducements to potential SoHO donors or to those giving consent on their behalf as such an action would be contrary to the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation. Refreshments and small gifts, such as pens or badges, should not be considered as inducements and the practice of offering them to SoHO donors is acceptable as a recognition of their efforts. On the other hand, rewards or benefits, such as payment of funeral expenses, or payment of health insurance unrelated to the SoHO collection, should be considered as inducements, and as such contrary to the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation and should not be permitted.

(60) This Regulation is not meant to cover research using SoHO when that research does not involve human application, for example in vitro research or research in animals. However, SoHO used in research involving studies where they are applied to the human body should comply with this Regulation. In order to avoid undermining the effectiveness of this Regulation, and in particular in view of the need to ensure a consistently high level of protection for SoHO donors, and sufficient availability of SoHO for recipients, the donation of SoHO that will be exclusively for use in research without any human application should also comply with the standards concerning voluntary and unpaid donation set out in this Regulation.

…

(68) In cases where the availability of critical SoHO or products manufactured from critical SoHO depends on potential commercial interests, such as those related to the production and distribution of plasma-derived products, there is a risk of not having the interests of patients and research at the forefront, and thus to jeopardise the quality and safety of SoHO, SoHO donors and recipients. There could even be situations in which some products with low profitability are no longer produced, thereby hampering their accessibility for patients. Therefore, by considering all reasonable efforts for an appropriate and continuous supply of critical SoHO, Member States contribute to limiting the risk of shortages of products manufactured from critical SoHO.

(69) The exchange of SoHO between Member States is necessary for ensuring optimal patient access and sufficiency of supply, particularly in the case of local crises or shortages. For certain SoHO that need to be matched between the SoHO donor and the SoHO recipient, such exchanges are essential to allow SoHO recipients to receive the treatment they need in the optimal timeframe. This is for instance the case of hematopoietic stem cell transplants, for which the level of compatibility between the SoHO donor and the SoHO recipient has to be high, which requires coordination at a global level, so that each SoHO recipient has as many options as possible to identify a compatible SoHO donor.

##########

“Next steps (from the European Commission): 

The Council will now formally adopt the new European Health Data Space regulation which is expected to be published in the Official Journal in autumn. It will then become applicable in different stages according to use case and data type.

The Council will also formally adopt the new revised legislation to increase the safety and quality of substances of human origin, which will become applicable in 2027.

#####

Earlier:

Monday, April 22, 2024

Plasma donation in the EU: compensated and uncompensated

The Ethical Limits of Markets by Kim Krawiec

 Here's a new summary by one of the leading scholars of "taboo trades."

Kimberly D. Krawiec, "The Ethical Limits of Markets: Market Inalienability," Forthcoming, The Research Handbook On The Philosophy of Contract Law (edited by Mindy Chen-Wishart and Prince Saprai)   3 Apr 2024

Abstract: Although ethical critiques of markets are longstanding, modern academic debates about the “moral limits of markets” (MLM) tend to be fairly limited in scope. These disputes center, not on the dangers of markets per se, but on the dangers of exchanging particular items and activities through the marketplace. Proponents of MLM theories thus do not want to eliminate markets entirely, but instead seek to identify the moral and ethical boundaries of the marketplace by considering which goods and services are inappropriate for market trading. This chapter summarizes and categorizes some of the more important arguments within this debate, with a focus on recent research, controversies, and applications. The goal is to provide an overview of these debates, highlighting some of the topics that have generated robust discussion, particularly when relatively recent empirical or theoretical work may shed new light on a topic. Specifically, I focus on crowding out, corruption, leaving a space for altruism, equality, and a trio of related debates regarding paternalism (coercion, unjust inducement, and exploitation).

Here's her opening paragraph:

"Markets have limits—even the staunchest libertarian agrees with that idea.1 But the consensus ends there. There is no agreement on what those limits should be or why, as demonstrated by the vast variation in legal regimes around the world. For example, markets in sex are legal in much of the world and illegal in most of the United States.2 Markets in gametes and surrogacy services are legal and thriving in most of the United States and illegal in much of the rest of the world.3 Most of the world prohibits payments to plasma donors and, as a result, are forced to meet their domestic plasma needs by importing plasma-derived products from the United States, which in turn meets demand by paying plasma donors.

Plasma donation in the EU: compensated and uncompensated

 Here's a commentary on the EU Parliament's current efforts to ban compensation to plasma donors in the EU, published today.

 Julio J Elias, Nicola Lacetera, Mario Macis, Axel Ockenfels, Alvin E Roth, "Quality and safety for substances of human origins: scientific evidence and the new EU regulations," BMJ Global Health, Volume 9, Issue 4 (21 April, 2024) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015122

"Summary box

The new European Union (EU) ‘Regulation on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin (SoHOs) intended for human application’ is based on a long-standing diffidence towards offering compensation to donors of SoHOs.

We point to recent, growing empirical evidence indicating that carefully designed compensation can increase the supply of SoHOs without negatively affecting quality and safety. We also elaborate arguments that address some of the moral concerns that motivate the aversion to payments.

As member states proceed to adopt the new EU regulation, our article may provide insights on how to achieve both self-sufficiency and safety"

...

"At least where plasma for fractionation is concerned, the unpaid-donor system has failed to meet demand. Table 1 indicates that in Europe, countries allowing monetary compensation for donors are the only ones achieving self-sufficiency in plasma collection for the production of immunoglobulin. The plasma sector in countries that compensate plasma donors, notably the USA, serves as supplier to many countries experiencing chronic shortages. The USA alone collects about 70% of the world’s plasma supply.10 A combination of a favourable regulatory environment, an extensive collection network and advanced technological infrastructure contributed to establishing the US position.11

Table 1

Plasma self-reliance and models of plasma collection15–19

Country	Reliance on domestic supply (% of total national need)	Monetary payments allowed	Current payment amount	Other incentives
Austria (2020)	100	Yes	€30–40	–
Czech Republic (2020)	100	Yes	€30–35	–
Germany (2020)	100	Yes	€25	–
Hungary (2020)	100	Yes	€30	–
Latvia (2018)	100	Yes	€17	–
Italy (2018)	76	No	–	Paid leave of absence from work
Slovenia (2017)	54	No	–	Paid leave of absence from work
Belgium (2019)	50	No	–	Paid leave of absence from work
France (2020)	50	No	–	–
Netherlands (2020)	45	No	–	–
Slovakia (2018)	41	No	–	–
Denmark (2018)	34	No	–	–
Spain (2020)	34	No	–	–
Portugal (2018)	22	No	–	Exemption from National Health Service user fees

• The table shows, for each country, the percentage of plasma needed for immunoglobulin (Ig) production that is collected domestically. The year in parenthesis is the one to which the data on self-reliance refer. The table then reports whether monetary payments are allowed, the current range of payments per donation and any other incentives in use in each country. In countries that allow payments, plasma collectors offer, in addition to monetary compensation for each donation, additional monetary or in-kind rewards, for example, when a donor reaches a certain number of donations (eg, 5, 10,…), or to first-time donors. The figures reported above do not include these additional rewards.

Plasma in Canada: payments and protests

 The local newspaper in Niagara on the Lake, a town in Ontario, Canada, covers the proposed opening next year of plasma collection centers that will pay for plasma.

Pay-for-plasma centre draws criticism from Health Coalition. The centre, which will pay residents to donate their blood plasma, is scheduled to open on Hespeler Road by early 2025, by Matt Betts

"The chair of the Waterloo Region Health Coalition is raising concerns about a pay-for-plasma centre slated to open on Hespeler Road in Cambridge by early 2025.

"Just as it sounds, residents can be compensated for donating their blood plasma.

"It's all part of an agreement between Spanish global healthcare company, Grifols, and the Canadian Blood Services.

"In September 2022, Canadian Blood Services announced our action plan in response to a global shortage of medications called immunoglobulins and plasma needed to make them," CBS said in an email to CambridgeToday.

"With funding from governments, Canadian Blood Services is opening 11 plasma donor centres in Canada and collecting more plasma ourselves. Our agreement with Grifols, a global healthcare company and leader in producing plasma medicines, is another part of that plan."

...

"paying for donations is banned in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. 

"However, CBS said its been in close discussions with the government and has an exemption.

...

"The agreement also complies with Ontario’s Voluntary Blood Donations Act, which has always contained an exemption for Canadian Blood Services, with implicit consideration of our agents, given our role as the national blood operator and supplier of blood products in Canada. Through our agreement, Grifols will operate under the Act as an agent of Canadian Blood Services."

"Per the agreement, Grifols must use plasma they collect in Canada to make immunoglobulins exclusively for patients in Canada, which reduces reliance on the global market, CBS said.

"But the whole operation doesn't sit right with Waterloo Region Health Coalition chair, Jim Stewart.

"It's a repugnant example of profit driven healthcare," Stewart said, questioning who's profiting in the end.

"What's next, paying people for their organs or embryos? This is just another example of Premier Doug Ford’s drive to privatize our healthcare system."

...

""These pay-for-donations centres really impact the homeless, people with low incomes and those with high levels of unemployment. This is going to dismantle the voluntary donor base and the sustainability of blood supply could be in jeopardy."

...

"While not confirmed by Grifols, Canadian Blood Resources and giveplasma.ca states qualified donors can earn up to $70 per donation and can donate twice in a seven day period."

#####

HT: Frank McCormick

Earlier:

Sunday, September 18, 2022

Canadian Blood Services to start paying Canadian plasma donors

Planet money plus-- interview on repugnant transactions

 Behind a paywall :(, but here's some more of the interview that I did with Planet Money last month:

Extended Play: Al Roth on money and 'repugnant markets' (Planet Money+)Planet Money

• • Business

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Requires subscription and macOS 11.4 or higher

Repugnant markets. We heard about them from economist Al Roth in a recent Planet Money episode. These are markets that aren't allowed because people feel icky about putting a price on something. For example, it's basically illegal to buy and sell kidneys in much of the world. In today's bonus episode, Mary Childs talks with Al about other repugnant markets that didn't make it into the original show, like surrogacy and blood plasma. They also discuss how money can change relationships.You can hear that original Planet Money episode here: https://www.npr.org/1197956769 Show your support for Planet Money and the reporting we do by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. You'll be able to unlock this episode and other great bonus content. Regular episodes remain free to listen! Email the show at planetmoney@npr.org.

Earlier:

hursday, February 8, 2024

Morally contested markets on NPR's Planet Money (including kidneys, revenge and insider trading)

Coalition to Modify NOTA (the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984)

 Elaine Perlman forwards the following discussion points:

Coalition to Modify NOTA Talking Points

modifyNOTA.org

What is the Coalition to Modify NOTA proposing? The Coalition to Modify NOTA proposes providing a $50,000 refundable tax credit to remove all disincentives for American non-directed kidney donors who donate their kidney to a stranger at the top of the kidney waitlist in order to greatly increase the supply of living kidney transplants, the gold standard for patients with kidney failure.

What is the value of a new kidney? The value of a new kidney, in terms of quality of life and future earnings potential, is between $1.1 million and $1.5 million.

What is the American kidney crisis? Fourteen Americans on the waiting list for a kidney transplant die each day. That number does not include the many kidney failure patients who are not placed on the waiting list but would have benefited from a kidney transplant if we had no shortage. The total number of Americans with kidney failure will likely exceed one million by 2030. 

Why not rely on deceased donor kidneys to end the shortage? A living kidney transplant lasts on average twice as long as a deceased donor kidney. Fewer than 1 in 100 Americans die in a way that their kidneys can be procured. Currently, the 60% of Americans who are registered as deceased donors provide kidneys for 18,000 Americans annually. Even if 100% of Americans agreed to become organ donors, this would raise donations by only about 12,000 per year. In the USA, 93,000 Americans are on the kidney waitlist. A total of 25,000 people are transplanted annually, two-thirds from deceased donors and one-third from living donors. The size of the waitlist has nearly doubled in the past 20 years, while the number of living donors has not increased.

What is the extra value that non-directed kidney donors provide? Non-directed kidney donors often launch kidney chains that can result in a multitude of Americans receiving kidneys. Fewer than 5% of all living kidney donations are from non-directed kidney donors who are an excellent source of organs for transplantation because they are healthier than the general population. 

 

How much does the taxpayer currently spend on dialysis? Kidney transplantation not only saves lives; it also saves money for the taxpayer. The United States government spends nearly $50 billion dollars per year (1% of all $5 trillion collected in annual taxes) to pay for 550,000 Americans to have dialysis, a cost of approximately $100,000 per year per patient, a treatment that is far more expensive than transplantation.

 

How many more lives will be saved with the refundable tax credit for non-directed donors? The number of non-directed donors increased from 18 in 2000 to around 300 each year. After our Act becomes law, we estimate that we will add approximately 7,000 non-directed donor kidneys annually. That is around 70,000 new transplanted Americans by year ten. 

 

How much tax money will be saved once the Act is passed? The refundable tax credit will greatly increase the number of living donors who generously donate their kidneys to strangers. We estimate that in year ten after the Act is passed, the taxpayers will have saved $12 billion. 

 

What is a refundable tax credit? A refundable tax credit can be accessed by both those who do and those who do not pay federal taxes. 

 

What do Americans think about compensating living kidney donors? Most Americans favor compensation for living kidney donors  to increase donation rates. 

 

Who is able to donate their kidneys?  Donation requires potential organ donors to undergo a comprehensive physical and psychological evaluation, and each transplant center has its own rigorous criteria. Only around 5% of those who pursue evaluation actually end up donating, and only about one-third of Americans are healthy enough to be donors. Providing financial incentives will encourage more Americans to donate their kidneys to help those with kidney failure.

 Do kidney donors currently have expenses that result from their donation? The medical costs of donation are covered by the recipients' insurance, but donors are responsible for providing for the costs of their own travel, out-of-pocket expenses, and lost wages. Programs like the federal NLDAC and NKR's Donor Shield can help offset these costs, making donation less expensive.

Is it moral to compensate kidney donors? Compensation for kidney donors can be viewed as a way to address the current kidney shortage and save lives. Americans are compensated for various forms of donation such as sperm, eggs, plasma, and surrogacy, all of which involve giving life. 

How long do we need to compensate living kidney donors? Compensation should continue until a xenotransplant or advanced kidney replacement technology becomes available. In the meantime, it's crucial to prevent further loss of lives due to the shortage.

 Will incentivizing donors undermine altruism?  Financial compensation for donors can coexist with altruism. Donors can opt out of the funds from the tax credit or choose to donate those funds to charity. The majority of donors support financial compensation, and relying solely on altruism has led to preventable deaths.

 In addition to ending the kidney shortage, what are other benefits of the Act? The Act can help combat the black market for kidneys and reduce human trafficking because we will have an increased number of transplantable kidneys. It can also motivate individuals to become healthier to pass donor screening, potentially further reducing overall healthcare costs.

 Why provide non-directed donors with a refundable tax credit of $50,000? The compensation is designed to attract those who are both healthy and willing to donate. Given the commitment, time, and effort involved in the donation process, this compensation recognizes the value of those who save lives and taxpayer funds.

 When more donors step forward, can transplant centers increase the number of surgeries?  There is considerable unused capacity at most U.S. transplant centers, and increasing the number of donors is likely to lead to more surgeries. The goal is to perform more kidney transplants and reduce the waitlist, benefiting patients in need.

 In what way does the Act uphold The Declaration of Istanbul?  While the Act deviates from one principle of the Declaration of Istanbul by offering compensation, it aligns with the other principles and is expected to standardize compensation and reduce worldwide organ trafficking.

 What about dialysis as an alternative to transplant?  Dialysis, while a treatment option, can be a challenging and uncomfortable process for patients. For those who could have been transplanted if there were no kidney shortage, dialysis can result in needless suffering and an untimely death.

 Why not compensate living liver donors? Liver donation is riskier and not as cost-effective as kidney donation. While the Act currently focuses on kidney donors, it's possible that compensation for liver donors could be considered in the future.

 What about the argument that providing an incentive to donate will exploit the donors, especially low income donors? 

Primarily middle and low income kidney failure patients are dying due to the kidney shortage. People with lower incomes tend to have social networks with fewer healthy people because health is related to income level. In addition, being placed on a waitlist often costs money. Kidney donation also costs money, an estimated 10% of annual income. The refundable tax credit will help low income donors and recipients the most by making donation affordable and increasing the number of kidneys for those waiting the longest on the waitlist, frequently middle and low income Americans. The tax credit aims to help those most affected by the kidney shortage, as poorer and middle-income individuals often bear the brunt of the kidney crisis’s consequences. The Act will level the playing field, making it easier for those at all income levels to receive a life-saving kidney. 

Please examine this chart:

 

Market Design in El Mercurio--Chile's oldest newspaper

Last Tuesday, in Chile I was interviewed by Eduardo Olivares, the editor for Economics and Business of El Mercurio,  which published the interview yesterday. We talked for an hour about market design generally, about how markets work when they're working well or working badly, and we spoke about school choice (where Chile is a leader) and transplantation (where it is not). The interview is behind a paywall, but below are some extracts (retranslated back into English via Google Translate).

On markets generally:

—Many people ask that “markets be free,” as has recently happened in Argentina. Should they be free?

“That's a complicated question. Markets should be free to function well, but they need conditions that allow them to function well. Having a free market does not necessarily mean a market without rules. A wheel can spin freely because it has a well-greased axle and bearings. A wheel by itself cannot turn very well, and the same goes for the market.”

—Who puts the oil in the wheel gears?

“That's the job of market design. Part of what makes markets work well are good market rules. The government has a role in regulating markets, concerning property rights and things like that. But on another level, entrepreneurs do things. Here in Santiago I [can]... call an Uber using the same app and rules I use in California. Uber is a marketplace for passengers and drivers. The rules can be made by both private organizations and the government.”

On prices:

—Do prices matter?

"A lot. “Prices are important to help allocate scarce resources, but also to make them less scarce.”

...

—When do they not matter?

“Let me start with when they matter a lot: in commodity markets. If you want to buy commodities, price is really the only thing that's happening. But when 'El Mercurio' wants to hire journalists, it doesn't limit itself to offering a salary: it wants it to be a good job, with special reporters. Price is important, but in other markets other things are also important. When you get a new job, the first question your friends ask you is not what the salary is, but who you work for.”

On school choice:

“Most markets are not commodity markets... In some markets we don't like prices to work at all. One of the places where Chile is a leader in market design is school choice: how people are assigned to schools and Chile has done a lot of work on this, although mainly for public schools.”

—What do you know about this system in Chile?

“Not long ago, before there was centralized and widespread school choice in Chile, there were the usual problems with decentralized school choice; That is, parents had to get up early to get in line, and they had a difficult process to register their children.”

—The new system has been criticized. Some claim it caused more people to choose the private system over the public school system. Isn't it similar to what is happening in New York, for example?

“There is something to that. In New York and Boston we also have a system that we call charter schools: free access schools, but organized by private entities, even if they are municipal schools. And they also have different standards. School choice is important, but it does not solve the problems of poverty or income inequality. Now, one of the reasons we have school choice in the United States and perhaps also in Chile is because we think that, otherwise, there is a danger that the poor will be condemned to send their children to poor schools. .

—Has there been any successful case in which parents can honestly rank the order of preference for the school they want their children to go to?

“In Chile, procedures are used that [make it] what game  theorists call a dominant strategy to express true preferences. The [remaining] problem is not in creating systems that make it safe to express preferences, but in distributing the information so that people can form preferences sensibly. In the United States, the hardest families to reach are those who don't speak English at home, so it's sometimes difficult to communicate with them. And different families have different feelings about what kind of schools their children should attend.”

“The benefits of school choice come from the fact that some schools may be high quality for some children but not for others, so we would like children to attend the schools that are best quality for them.”

On kidneys:

—You are famous for the proposal that allowed the “kidney exchange.” Years after the first experience, what do you see now in this type of market?

“Kidney exchange is working quite well in the US, but it works especially well for patients who are not too difficult to match. Even in the US, a fairly large country, we have patients who are so difficult to match that we have trouble finding a kidney for them.”

—And in other countries?

“Smaller countries, with 20 million inhabitants, like Chile, would benefit if we could make national borders not so important. When we look at transplants per million inhabitants, Chile is in the middle of the world. But since it is a small country, when the total number of transplants performed is analyzed, Chile has very few. Kidneys are obtained from both deceased and living donors. In Chile, as in much of the world, the majority of transplants come from deceased donors. Kidney exchange would allow more transplants to come from living donors ... “Twenty million is not enough, so it would be very good to see in South America an exchange of kidneys that can cross between countries, which is not so easy to do.”

Equality of exchange and the role of perceptions

“One of the things that worries people when talking about transplants is that [they think it might be] a medical process that exploits the poor. Of course, the thing about kidney exchange is that each pair of people gives one kidney and receives one kidney. It is very egalitarian. I think kidney exchange is a good place to combat this notion that transplantation is like trafficking,” he notes.

—Notions, perceptions are very important. Many people think of “exchange” as the exchange of securities in the stock market.

“That's right, but not every exchange involves money. One of the discussions about money in the world that is taking place in the European Union at the moment is about payment to blood plasma donors. In the EU, only Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary pay blood plasma donors. And those are the only EU countries that have as much blood plasma as they need. The others have to import everything, and they do it from the United States. The United States is the Saudi Arabia of blood plasma (…) The World Health Organization says that plasma must be obtained in each country, and from unpaid donors. You have to be self-sufficient... an economist finds that a little funny. Blood is a matter of life and death. “When there is a pandemic, we do not tell countries that they must be self-sufficient [in vaccines].”

—When we talk about these exchanges of blood plasma and kidneys, school choice systems, we are talking about the same idea: coincident or paired markets. But the concept of the market has been so questioned, especially by some political groups, for so long...

"It's true. Now,  kidney exchange is special because money doesn't change hands. Money changes hands to get medical care, you have to pay doctors, nurses and hospitals. But we are not talking about buying kidneys from donors, but rather that, at the patient level, each pair receives a kidney and donates a kidney. It is radically egalitarian. Many people who think about markets may not think of it as a market, but I think that's a mistake. Many markets are not just about money… we would worry much less about markets if income and wealth inequality did not exist. “What worries us about markets is that some people are poor and some people are rich, and markets seem like a way to give the rich an advantage.”

“There is no doubt that being rich is better than being poor. The real question is what do we do to alleviate poverty. Making it invisible is not the same as alleviating it. One of the reasons I think many countries don't allow blood and plasma donors to be paid is because they don't like the way that looks. It reminds them that some people would like to get some money and would donate blood for it.”

Apparently, according to the caption, I'm "affable and smiling" (although not in this picture:)

I was in Chile to participate in what turned out to be a wonderful workshop on market design at the University of Chile, organized by Itai Ashlagi, José Correa, and Juan Escobar.

Some related recent posts:

Saturday, December 23, 2023

Market design: some press accounts in Chile

Wednesday, December 20, 2023

Public lecture today at the Casa Central de la Universidad de Chile:“Quién obtiene qué y por qué: La nueva economía del diseño de mercados”

Sunday, December 17, 2023

Market Design Workshop 18 - 20 December 2023 Santiago, Chile

Saturday, November 4, 2023

The EU proposes strengthening bans on compensating donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHOs)--op-ed in VoxEU by Ockenfels and Roth

#########

Update (Dec. 27): Here's an account of my closing public talk from the U. Chile's Center for Mathematical Modeling, one of the hosts of the market design workshop.

Alvin Roth: “Markets are human artifacts, they are tools that we build ourselves to help us”.

And here's a picture at the close, including some of those mentioned above: At my far left in the picture is José Correa,  who in addition to his other roles is Vice Rector for Information Technologies. Next to him is Alejandra Mizala, prorrector (provost) of the university.  Next to her (immediately to my left) is Rector of the University of Chile, Rosa Devés, and immediately to my right is market designer and director of the MIPP Millennium Institute, Juan Escobar. Next to him is Héctor Ramírez, director of the Center for Mathematical Modeling. And next to him (at my far right) is professor Rafael Epstein who (along with Correa, Escobar, and his daughter Natalie Epstein) has been involved with school choice in Chile, among other things.