Compensation for kidney donors debated in WSJ

Familiar positions, clearly stated, pro and con compensation for donors.
There are other reasons put forward for not rewarding organ donation, but the one espoused here (preserving "the ability for one to aspire to virtue") is perhaps the one I have the least sympathy with, as it seems to value the hope of heaven more than saving earthly lives...

How to Provide Better Incentives to Organ Donors
Three experts discuss strategies to address the shortage of organs available for people who need transplants

"We talked about options for increasing organ donation with Sally Satel, a doctor and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the beneficiary of two kidney donations; Alexandra Glazier, chief executive of New England Donor Services, which coordinates organ and tissue donation in six New England states and Bermuda; and Andrew Flescher, a professor of public health and English at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and author of “The Organ Shortage Crisis in America.”
...
"WSJ: The gap between the number of people who need organs and the number of organs available continues to grow. Why is our current model failing to bridge that gap?

DR. SATEL: Having studied the issue for 12 years, since my first kidney transplant, I am convinced that the only solution—before technology makes donation from people obsolete, and it will—is to compensate potential organ donors.

PROF. FLESCHER: The way forward is living donation. Roughly 100,000 out of 120,000 folks who need an organ need a kidney, which can be procured from a living donor, as most of us are born with two kidneys. We need a way of getting everyone to care about the plight of folks on dialysis, not through any coercive measure, of course, but through simple exposure.

MS. GLAZIER: There is no question that need outpaces the supply significantly. That said, it’s important to recognize that the number of deceased organ donors in the U.S. has increased 26% in the past five years (2012-2017) and the number of organs transplanted has increased 28% over the same period. In the New England region, the increase was more than double this rate over the same time period.

...

"PROF. FLESCHER: I certainly do not think paying living donors is the way to go.

DR. SATEL: But what is left? I suppose the real question is what is so aversive about enrichment of some kind? Surely, we do it with plasma, egg, sperm, body, as in donations in medical schools, maternal surrogacy, breast milk, hair. We already pay for body products. And, of course, my colleagues and I do not recommend lump-sum cash, because we do not want to attract desperate, impulsive people who may regret acting. Instead, rewards could include things like tax credits, lifetime health insurance, a contribution to a 401(k) account or a tuition voucher.

PROF. FLESCHER: The introduction of money for a precious good comes at the cost of the ability for one to aspire to virtue, if not as hero, than as a civic-minded, socially conscious neighbor, free to act, and to be perceived as acting, out of the motive to offer help to one in need.

...

"WSJ: Sally, can you please sum up the central tenets of how compensation for living donors would work?

DR. SATEL: The principles of a system of compensation are these: 1. Informed consent. 2. Ensuring health protection, before and after. 3. An ample reward—something trivial amounts to exploitation. 4. Respect for autonomy of people who know what is in their best interest. 5. Expression of gratitude for the lifesaving act they performed.

I suggest a waiting period of six to 12 months to ensure that the would-be donor is sure he or she wants to proceed. And a noncash reward, because a cash reward will appeal to impulsive decision makers, and we need to avoid that.

Cascades of convalescent plasma for Covid-19, and chains of exchanges, by Kominers, Pathak, Sönmez, and Ünver

Covid-19 convalescent plasma is a new thing in the world, that came into existence only when the first human was infected and recovered from the Covid-19 disease that is now pandemic. It isn't clear yet whether it will be clinically valuable, but recovered antibodies have been valuable for some other diseases, so there's excellent reason to hope that will be the case now too.  And as the number of people grows who have recovered from Covid-19, it is likely that the supply of antibodies is growing much faster, since antibody-containing plasma can be donated once a month or so. (There are  ongoing studies of antibody production by recovered patients, examining how long the antibodies remain at high levels, post-recovery). Of course, most of that supply is sequestered in the blood of recovered patients, so there's a non-trivial issue of collection and distribution.

As readers of this blog know, many countries prohibit the sale of plasma. Will Americans continue to support a commercial market for Covid-19 convalescent plasma in the current pandemic?  A distinguished group of market designers has written a paper considering how to apply techniques developed for kidney exchange to the task of collecting convalescent plasma from recovered Covid-19 patients, if it becomes impossible to buy and sell it. In particular, they consider how to create chains of donations, without using money, to overcome the shortages they anticipate.

Here's an easy to read account by Scott Kominers, one of the authors.

How to End the Plasma Shortage for Coranavirus Patients

Scott Duke Kominers, Bloomberg News  May 11, 2020

"convalescent plasma is in short supply: although it’s hard to estimate precisely, some statistics suggest the U.S. may need twice as much as we have on hand.

"In a new paper, Parag A. Pathak, Tayfun Sonmez, M. Utku Unver and I propose a market design strategy that could help close the gap. Our approach makes use of two special features of the way plasma donation works.

"First, convalescent plasma is collected from recently recovered patients, which means that today’s patients become tomorrow’s prospective donors, assuming they manage to beat the virus. ... That suggests the shortage isn’t from lack of potential supply.

"Second, plasma donation is more than one-for-one: the typical donor can give enough plasma at one time for multiple treatments, and they can potentially donate more than once. As a result, assuming plasma therapy does help patients recover, there is a so-called flywheel effect: the more we use the treatment, the more plasma is available -- provided enough recovered patients are willing to donate.

"Many people would like to donate plasma to help a loved one, but can’t for various reasons:  Their blood types might be incompatible or they might live far away and be unable to travel. To address these sorts of obstacles, my collaborators and I suggest that each plasma donor could receive a voucher that can be used to give a family member or friend priority for plasma treatment. Because donation is more than one-for-one, it’s possible to honor vouchers while still increasing the pool of plasma available to treat other patients.

...

"A similar analysis suggests a role for a pay-it-forward system, where we make a point of treating patients who pledge to donate plasma, assuming they recover and are medically able to do so. Because recovered patients can typically donate more plasma than was needed for their own treatment, this again can help increase the plasma supply in the long run. As a result, my collaborators and I show that, somewhat paradoxically, prioritizing patients who pledge to donate can still end up expanding treatment for the patients who are unable to pledge, or just choose not to.

"Both of these policies are similar to systems we’ve used to expand kidney donation in the U.S.: Priority vouchers are sometimes granted when a living donor gives a kidney to a third-party before one of their family members needs a transplant. And pay-it-forward incentives are used in kidney exchange chains, where a patient with a medically incompatible prospective donor receives a kidney from a third-party donor, and then their donor later gives a kidney to some other patient."
******
Here is the paper itself:

Paying It Backward and Forward: Expanding Access to Convalescent Plasma Therapy Through Market Design
Scott Duke Kominers, Parag A. Pathak, Tayfun Sönmez, M. Utku Ünver
NBER Working Paper No. 27143
Issued in May 2020

Abstract: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy is currently a leading treatment for COVID19. At present, there is a shortage of CCP relative to demand. We develop and analyze a model of centralized CCP allocation that incorporates both donation and distribution. In order to increase CCP supply, we introduce a mechanism that utilizes two incentive schemes, respectively based on principles of “paying it backward” and “paying it forward.” Under the first scheme, CCP donors obtain treatment vouchers that can be transferred to patients of their choosing. Under the latter scheme, patients obtain priority for CCP therapy in exchange for a future pledge to donate CCP if possible. We show that in steady-state, both principles generally increase overall treatment rates for all patients—not just those who are voucher-prioritized or pledged to donate. Our results also hold under certain conditions if a fraction of CCP is reserved for patients who participate in clinical trials. Finally, we examine the implications of pooling blood types on the efficiency and equity of CCP distribution.

Here's some of the motivation for their model:

"There is an active debate in economics and philosophy on the appropriate role of market-based

mechanisms with compensation for human products used in medicine or medical research like kidneys, blood, blood products, sperm, breast milk, bone marrow, and other.11 Since, as far as we know, there is no current market where infected patients can buy CCP or where recovered patients can sell CCP, we do not consider this possibility as part of our model.

...

"Because CCP is a form of plasma, a natural question is whether a compensated market for CCP will develop. In our model, there is no option to pay to receive CCP or be paid for donating CCP, but a donor can designate the voucher in our model to particular patient in need. As a result, our model of CCP falls between the two extremes described above. We expect that in a crisis moment, there is unlikely to be an active compensated market for CCP (even though it may be impossible to fully prohibit resale of vouchers). If a price-based market does develop, society may deem it unacceptable."

***************

I am more optimistic than they are about the likely available supply of convalescent plasma if it proves useful, through existing commercial channels. My optimism is based on the large thriving commercial market for plasma and plasma-derived antibodies in the U.S., and around the world.  I'll try to blog about the general plasma and antibody (immunoglobulin) market tomorrow, and perhaps more on Covid-19 antibodies later this week.