PubMed · 9010153
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Steinbrook. 1997-02-06. Allocating livers--devising a fair system.. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199702063360610
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Dramatic improvements in organ transplantation have meant that a growing number of patients must take expensive immunosuppressive medications for the rest of their lives. Currently, Medicare covers most transplantation procedures in the United States, but ends coverage for outpatient immunosuppressive medications after 36 months. Evidence suggests that at least some patients have reduced immunosuppression and their transplants fail because they cannot afford these medication costs. In the years since the advent of effective immunosuppressive therapy, the US Congress has struggled with this issue, and in 1999 temporarily extended medication coverage for eligible patients (based on age and disability) by 8 months. However, a more permanent solution is needed. We advocate that Medicare should cover the cost of all immunosuppressive therapy for all solid organ transplant recipients who cannot afford to pay. A number of potentially cost-effective approaches could be taken, but, in any case, something must be done to ensure that transplants do not fail because recipients cannot pay for immunosuppression.
Recent educational efforts in the US medical community have begun to address the critical issue of palliative care for terminally ill patients. However, a newly introduced bill in Congress, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (PRPA), could dramatically hinder these efforts if enacted. The act criminally punishes the use of controlled substances to cause-or assist in causing-a patient's death. The primary purposes of PRPA are to override the physician-assisted suicide law currently in effect in Oregon and prohibit other states from enacting similar laws. The act also includes valuable provisions for better research and education in palliative care, but the benefits of those provisions are outweighed by the punitive sections of the act. Under PRPA, the quality of palliative care in the United States could be compromised when physicians, fearing criminal prosecution, err on the side of caution rather than risk their patients' deaths by using highly aggressive pain treatments. Furthermore, PRPA would put Drug Enforcement Administration officials, who have no medical expertise, in the position of regulating medical decisions. The act also would interfere with individual states' long-standing authority over medical practice. Finally, PRPA would discourage physicians from engaging in experimentation and innovation in palliative care, again out of concern for crossing the line between relief of suffering and physician-assisted suicide. Other bills have been introduced that go much further than PRPA to encourage palliative care, without its problematic provisions. Regardless of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide in the United States, the need for quality end-of-life care will be far better served if Congress enacts one of these bills rather than PRPA.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.