Results for “organ donation”

86 found

Do pecuniary incentives increase blood donation or do extrinsic incentives crowd out intrinsic incentives? In Rewarding Altruism (NBER, free) an important and impressive new paper Nicola Lacetera, Mario Macis and Robert Slonim analyze a field experiment involving some 100,000 donors and find that pecuniary incentives significantly increase blood donations. The field experiment covers a wide geographic area and the donors are tracked for a significant period of time after donating so the authors can look for geographic and temporal spillovers. The authors offered potential donors gift cards of $5, $10 and $15.

Subjects who were offered economic rewards to donate blood were more likely to donate, and more so the higher the value of the rewards. They were also more likely to attract others to donate, spatially alter the location of their donations towards the drives offering rewards, and modify their temporal donation schedule leading to a short-term reduction in donations immediately after the reward offer was removed. Although offering economic incentives, combining all of these effects, positively and significantly increased donations, ignoring individuals who took additional actions beyond donating to get others to donate would have led to an under-estimate of the total effect, whereas ignoring the spatial effect would have led to an over-estimate of the total effect.

Some of the increase in supply came from temporal substitution but this is not without value. Incentives are not just about increasing supply but also about increasing supply at the right time, i.e. when blood is most needed so it’s useful to have a lever that can influence when donations are made.

Crowding out did receive some support in an odd context. The authors found that donors who were surprised with a gift card after they had donated were less likely to donate in the future. Thus, the donors did not reciprocate the unexpected gift and may have felt that their altruistic intention was being undermined. Once again we see the overwhelming importance of context when trying to understand incentives. To paraphrase Mises, an incentive is not an objective fact but a subjective interpretation.

The authors did not find any decline in quality ala Titmuss. Indeed, this is to be expected since modern blood donation is not a random shout-out to people on the street but instead relies predominantly on repeat donors with a long donation history.

Gift cards of $5, $10 and $15 are small incentives and the authors suggest that the benefits from the increased supply far exceed the costs. It’s notable that it takes longer to donate blood plasma and as a result the U.S. blood plasma industry (the “OPEC of blood plasma”) has always relied on paid donors.

Here are my powerpoint slides on Incentives to Increase Organ Donation and here is an older post on sperm exports.

Holland’s Health Minister has proposed a system for organ donation similar to what I have called (in Entrepreneurial Economics) "no-give, no-take."  Under the proposed system people who sign their organ donor cards would receive points which would raise them on the waiting list should they one day need an organ.

My main argument for no-give, no-take has always been efficiency, it would increase the incentives to donate.  It’s fairness, however, especially as it intersects with the politics of immigration that is driving the change in Holland.   

The Liberal VVD minister defended his proposal by pointing out that
Muslims often refuse to donate organs based on religious beliefs. This
is despite the fact they are willing to receive an organ if they are
ill. "That creates a bad feeling," he said.

"If you say: ‘I refuse to donate an organ because of my religion,
but I don’t want to receive one either’, than I will respect it. But I
won’t respect a one-sided attitude of receiving and not giving. I find
that problematic," Hoogervorst said.

Thanks to Dave Undis for the pointer.

A number of people emailed me or blogged (eg. here and here) on my post, Artificial heart won’t save lives. The number of transplants is constrained by the number of donated organs thus the main effect of the artificial heart, which is just a temporary stop-gap, is to redistribute organs. The artificial heart makes some people better off at the expense of other people who are made worse off. No one challenged this conclusion but it seemed to make some people uncomfortable. Two arguments were raised in opposition, both of which are weak.

First, the heart does allow some people to live a little bit longer – this is a benefit, but a few weeks of life while chained to a big machine doesn’t seem like a big breakthrough to me. Second, the artificial heart could allow for better matching. Theoretically true, but there are already many more patients on the waiting list than there are hearts available so the opportunity for better matching is negligible. Consider, that for a given heart there are now 3500 people on the waiting list to choose from – how much better is the match going to be if we add a few more people to this list?

I am not against artificial hearts (some people say I have one!) perhaps one day the technology will improve enough so that someone on an artificial heart can be taken off the list, but the issue is comparative. Suppose that we put the funds gong into artificial hearts into programs to increase organ donation. One donated organ is say good for 10 years of extra life. Average time on the artificial heat is 77 days and it is not clear how many of these days represent extra days of live. Let’s say very charitably that 50 days are extra then this means that one real heart is worth 73 times as much as an artificial heart (10*365/50) and that is before adjusting for quality of life.

The shortage of human organs for transplant grows worse every year. Better immuno-suppressive drugs and surgical techniques have raised the demand at the same time that better emergency medicine, reduced crime and safer roads have reduced organ supply. As a result, the waiting list for organ transplants is now 82,000 and rising and more than 6000 people will die this year while waiting for a transplant.

The economics of the shortage are so obvious that one popular textbook, Pindyck and Rubinfeld’s Microeconomics, uses the organ shortage to explain the effect of price controls more generally!

Perhaps because the shortage is growing, opposition to financial compensation for cadaveric donation (compensation for live donors is a distinct issue) appears to be lessening. The AMA, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the United Network for Organ Sharing have agreed that tests of the idea would be desirable. (A group of clerics, doctors, economists (I am a member) and others has formed to lobby for the idea – see our letter to Congress.) Currently, even tests are illegal but Representative James Greenwood (R, Pa.) has introduced a bill (H.R. 2856) that would create an exception.

Aside from the obvious benefits of saving lives, financial compensation for organ donation would likely save money. Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation. There are some 285,000 people on dialysis in the US. Transplants are cheaper than dialysis by something like $10-$25,000 per year. About a quarter of those on dialysis are on the waiting list but perhaps as many as half could benefit from a transplant (fewer people are put on the list because of the shortage.) Let’s take the lower numbers. Assume that a quarter of the patients on dialysis could benefit from a transplant and that cost savings are $10,000 a year for five years. Then ending the shortage would save 3.5 billion dollars. Note again that this is a lower estimate. How much would it cost to end the shortage? No one knows for certain but I think a $5000 gift to the estates of organ donors would increase supply enough to greatly alleviate the shortage – that would involve doubling the supply to 12,000 for a paltry cost of $60 million. If this is not enough – raise the gift – anyway you cut it, the savings from dialysis exceed the costs of compensating donors by a large margin.

We should in fact count the value of the lives saved. If we can save 6000 lives and value each life at 3 million dollars (a lower value than what the US government typically uses in its calculations) then that is a further gain of 18 billion dollars.

A Tragedy of the Commons? Economics provides another way of looking at the crisis. Currently we have organ socialism – anyone who needs an organ is allowed access to the organ pool regardless of whether or not they contributed to the upkeep. As with other resources owned in common we get over-exploitation and under-investment. Consider, instead a “no-give, no-take policy” – only those who have previously signed their organ donor cards are allowed access to the pool. Not only is this more moral than the current policy it creates an incentive to sign your organ donor card. Signing your card becomes the ticket to joining a club – the club of people who have agreed to share their organs should they no longer need them. Equivalently signing your organ donor card becomes analogous to buying insurance. I discuss the idea further in Entrepreneurial Economics.

An organ club has in fact been started – I am not just an adviser, I’m also a member! You can join too at www.lifesharers.com.