U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–028 PDF 2008

UTILIZING PUBLIC POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY TO

STRENGTHEN ORGAN DONOR PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

Serial No. 110–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

BILL SALI, Idaho

TONY HAYWOOD, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 25, 2007 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Burdick, James, M.D., Director, Division of Transplantation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Timothy Pruett, M.D., president,

United Network for Organ Sharing; Susan Dunn, president-elect, Association of Organ Procurement Organizations; Clive O. Callender, M.D.,

founder, Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program; Jeffrey

S. Crippin, M.D., past president, American Society of Transplantation;

and Elizabeth M.P. Rubin ............................................................................ 20

Burdick, James, M.D. ................................................................................ 20

Callender, Clive O., M.D. .......................................................................... 53

Crippin, Jeffrey S., M.D. ........................................................................... 69

Dunn, Susan .............................................................................................. 39

Pruett, Timothy, M.D. ............................................................................... 32

Rubin, Elizabeth M.P. ............................................................................... 76

Walls, Everson, kidney donor, former player, Dallas Cowboys .................... 6

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Burdick, James, M.D., Director, Division of Transplantation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, prepared statement of ................... 23

Callender, Clive O., M.D., founder, Minority Organ Tissue Transplant

Education Program, prepared statement of ................................................ 55

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 3

Crippin, Jeffrey S., M.D., past president, American Society of Transplantation, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 71

Dunn, Susan, president-elect, Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, prepared statement of .................................................................... 41

Pruett, Timothy, M.D., president, United Network for Organ Sharing,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 35

Rubin, Elizabeth M.P., prepared statement of ............................................... 79

Walls, Everson, kidney donor, former player, Dallas Cowboys, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 10

(1)

UTILIZING PUBLIC POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY TO STRENGTHEN ORGAN DONOR

PROGRAMS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m. in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Clay, Reyes, and Turner.

Also present: Representatives Lynch, and Costa.

Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean Gosa,

clerk; Adam C. Bordes, professional staff member; Nidia Salazar,

staff assistant; Michelle Mitchell, legislative assistant, Office of

William Lacy Clay; Allyson Blandford and Jay O’Callaghan, minority professional staff members; and Benjamin Chance, minority

clerk.

Mr. CLAY. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives will come to order.

Let me say good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing examining ongoing efforts to increase public participation in organ donor

programs. Organ donation is one of modern medicine’s most effective life-saving therapies. In fact, over the last 20 years more than

390,000 organ transplants have been performed successfully. Unfortunately, during that same period of time, the waiting list for an

organ transplant has more than doubled. Last year in the United

States over 6,000 Americans died while waiting for their lives to

be renewed through transplantation.

As we convene this hearing, nearly 97,000 patients are waiting

for an organ donation. This includes over 1,300 anxious men,

women, and children from my District in Missouri. After personally

witnessing the devastating effects of patients trapped on dialysis,

I am convinced that Congress must play a vital role in elevating

the issue of organ and tissue donation to become a National priority.

Yesterday I introduced H.R. 3635, the Everson Walls and Ron

Springs Gift for Life Act to raise awareness and increase organ donation. This legislation will provide assistance to State organ donor

2

programs and track the long-term health of individuals generous

enough to become organ donors.

In addition, it establishes a national organ and tissue donor registry resource center charged with providing information, technical

assistance, and grants to donor registries administered by the

States.

I would like to thank members of the transplant community for

assisting me in crafting this legislation. Today we welcome a group

of distinguished panelists from both the medical and patient communities. I look forward to their testimonies.

I also want to welcome two guests to this committee, one being

Representative Jim Costa of California, who is also part of the

Organ and Tissue Donor Caucus here in the House. Thank you for

being here, Mr. Costa. You may make an opening statement if you

care.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

3

4

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Chairman Clay, for inviting

me to participate in this afternoon’s hearing. Your support and

your passion for this issue is well known as an advocate on behalf

of organ and tissue donation. Our collective efforts I believe will

make a great difference.

I am pleased that, along with you, other of our colleagues share

in joining as Members of the Congressional Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Caucus, a new caucus, a bipartisan caucus, to

advocate on behalf of organ and tissue donations, which too often,

as you noted in your opening statement, is a forgotten part of the

health debate.

It is great to see athletes here today like Mr. Everson Walls. We

hope that he will be joined by Mr. Springs. We all know that football players—it is the season—are often idolized by their fans and

revered for their athletic prowess, but Mr. Walls comes this afternoon and shares the passion with us because he is not just a holder

of a Super Bowl Ring or one who mustered 57 career interceptions—I hope I got that correct.

Sadly, I believe that a number of those interceptions were

against the 49ers, my home team. But, nonetheless, with great respect, Mr. Walls is a hero in every sense of the word. His friend,

Ron Springs, who we hope to acknowledge, as well, was the recipient of Mr. Walls’ awareness and understanding that he had the gift

of life.

What we are talking about are over 100,000 people, as the chairman noted, who are on the waiting list for organ transplants. Nearly 6,000 of them pass away every year before a much-needed organ

becomes available to them.

So we as Members of Congress think we have to do more through

our legislative efforts, through our advocacy in creating greater

awareness of this issue, and support and encourage facilitating and

collaborating organ and tissue donation process.

We have a number of witnesses here who will testify in both the

first and the second panel. I am pleased to see Eunice and the

roundtable of support groups are an important part of this collective effort. We will hear later from Dr. Timothy Pruett and his

predecessor, Dr. Sue McDiarmid, who is a long-time friend of mine

who first brought my own awareness of the importance of the gift

of life; that, in fact, we have so much that has been made in the

way of progress in the way of medical science; and that we, as

human beings, have the opportunity to expand and to extend others through that gift of life.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the testimony. We

have over 300,000 minorities in my District. Nearly 80,000 nationwide are currently on the transplant list, yet too many of the minority donors still remain disproportionately low. I know that Mr.

Walls, through your testimony and your efforts with us, you will

help us expand that awareness. With the help of strong role models

such as yourself, Congressman Clay, and Dr. Callender, I know

that we stand to make great success and progress in our efforts.

This is truly wonderful and potentially a great effort and a noble

one that we embark upon today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

5

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Costa, for that opening

statement.

Now I would like to recognize my colleague, who happens to be

chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Silvestre

Reyes.

Thank you for being here.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Chairman Clay. Although I won’t be able

to stay for the hearing, because I just left one of my own, I did

want to come by and thank publicly Everson Walls, or Cubby as

he is known in Dallas, Cubby Walls, for really being the driving

force behind the Everson Walls/Ron Springs Gift for Life Legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for forging that legislation, because it really has, I think, the ability to make a real difference

in so many different communities around our country, and getting

the message out, which is a very good news story that speaks volumes about not just friendship but commitment to a teammate.

We are all so very proud of Everson Walls for what he did for

Ron Springs, but, more than that, I think for what he is about to

do through our collective efforts for organ donors and educating potential organ donors and so many, we hope, thousands and thousands of recipients that will benefit and enjoy a new, better quality

of life through this legislation.

I am proud to be here. Most of all, I am proud to know Everson

Walls and the kind of character that he brings that is the springboard for this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Now that the world and C-Span community knows that Everson

Walls’ nickname is Cubby, we welcome him, too.

Let me say, without objection, Members and witnesses may have

5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

Now, if there are no additional opening statements, the subcommittee will now receive testimony from the witnesses before us

today.

Ms. Rubin is on her way, so we will start with testimony with

Mr. Walls. Let me first introduce him.

Everson Walls is a retired NFL All-Pro cornerback, having

played 14 seasons with the Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, and

Cleveland Browns. During his career he was a four-time Pro Bowl

selection, three-time All-Pro selection, and was part of the New

York Giants’ 1990 Super Bowl championship team.

More importantly, in February of this year he became a kidney

donor to his long-time teammate and friend, Mr. Ron Springs. Together, Mr. Walls and Mr. Springs now lead the Gift of Life Foundation in order to promote awareness, early detection, and prevention of kidney disease and its associated illnesses.

Let me thank you for being here today.

It is the policy of the committee to swear in all witnesses before

they testify. I would like you to please stand and raise your right

hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative.

6

Thank you.

I ask that you give us your statement. There is a 5-minute rule,

and, of course, if you go over we will not flag you, Mr. Walls.

[Laughter.]

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF EVERSON WALLS, KIDNEY DONOR, FORMER

PLAYER, DALLAS COWBOYS

Mr. WALLS. Thank you, Congressman Lacy Clay. I want to also

thank some of your staff that have been so helpful in preparing me

for this hearing, as well as from the moment that I met you—I

think that was back in July of this year. They have been very helpful in helping in, if nothing else, get the word out about becoming

a living organ donor. That would be Michelle Mitchell, Darryl

Piggee, Adam Bordes.

Also I want to thank Congressman Silvestre Reyes and the people on his staff, Perry, Finney, I believe her name is, Brody. She

was also very helpful. And Marvin Steel, who is also with Congressman Clay’s staff, as well.

The day that is so famous now in my life and in many other people’s lives is February 28th. That was the day that I decided that

I would lay down my life for a good friend of mine named Ron

Springs. You know, whenever you make a decision as strong as this

one that is as impactful as this one was, then there are just so

many people that you have to consider, because, after all, any time

you make this type of decision you don’t really make it by yourself.

You are always shaped by not just the experiences that you have

had in life, but also the people that you have come across.

My Mom—she is not here now, but she is back in Dallas—as well

as my father, I must give some notice to them. My father is Weldon

Walls. My mother is Weila Walls. They would obviously be extremely proud to be here right now but they couldn’t make it. But

as soon as I get back home, I am sure they are going to want to

hear everything blow by blow on exactly what happened here.

And yes, Mr. Costa, I did get a lot of interceptions against the

San Francisco 49ers, but, in defense of the 49ers, I got more

against the Washington Redskins. [Laughter.]

Mr. COSTAS. I like to hear that.

Mr. WALLS. So if there are any Cowboy fans out there, I am sure

they really appreciate maybe my presence, as well as Mr. Spring’s

spirit being here, as well, with us.

You know, any time you talk about making a life-changing decision, as I said, there are so many people that are involved with

that. I am just a young man from Dallas, TX, from a small community called Hamilton Park. It is an all-African-American community in Dallas that has been established since 1954. We have had

a lot of great men and women come out of that community. I think

they would all be so proud of the fact that I am here right now

speaking on this bill that you are trying to pass.

One person I would have to say, Ron Springs wants to thank

anyone for what I have done for him. It is a long line of other people that he should thank. No. 1 is, obviously, my wife Shreill.

Shreill is a person that is great friends with Ron’s wife Adriene.

They are the kind of people that they could hang together all day

7

in any event, whether it is a cookout, family reunion, graduation,

or whatever. They can be with each other for 8 hours, and when

they come home they are going to give each other a call and talk

about what went on at that particular event. She loves Ron as if

he was a brother, and I knew that without her support that there

is no way I would be able to do this for Ron.

You look at the people that have really shaped my character in

the past. You spoke of character, Congressman Clay. I would be remiss if I did not bring up the late Coach Eddie Robinson from

Grambling State University. At the age of 17 I met this man, and

his influence on my life was just astronomical. Obviously I was

raised well by my parents, but when you start talking about raising a child, you have to go back to the old adage of it takes a village to raise a child, and Coach Robinson was aware of that. He

was always a person that didn’t care much about how a person

played football, because he always wanted you first to emulate an

American citizen in life, and if he knew that you were going to be

a great American citizen in life, then he would always feel that he

could make you into a good football player. Consequently, we had

championship years there, but that pales in comparison to the lessons that Coach Robinson taught me going through life.

I have been associated with so many different types of coaches.

Obviously, playing for 13, 14 years in the League you should be associated with some good players and good coaches. Tom Landry

from the Dallas Cowboys in the 1980’s was one of the most stern

and disciplined and successful coaches to come through the NFL.

I went off from the Cowboys to play with the New York Giants,

Coach Bill Parcels, who was one of the most personable, as well as

stern coaches I have ever been around. Being around such intelligent coaches such as Bill Belichick with the Cleveland Browns, as

well.

Any time you associate with these type of people, then you would

have to be a fool not to really learn something from them, not just

for football but also in life.

My kids are also very proud of me, as well as I am very proud

of them. My oldest daughter, Charis Walls, she is a graduate of

Southern University. My son, Cameron Walls, is now attending

Texas Southern University. These are my kids, and they are people

that really, really care so much for what I did for Ron, as well.

Our families are so close that it was a really easy decision for

me to make. Everyone always asks me, well, how could you lay

down your life for someone who is not a family member. When you

look at Ron Springs and you look at the dynamics of both of our

families, it is as if we are related, because we are not only close

through the careers that Ron and I had, but also through our

wives, as well as our offspring. His daughter Era and my daughter

Charis are best friends. His younger daughter Ashley and my son

Cameron are also very good friends. So when you talk about something that I did, it is almost as if he is a family member.

The one thing that we realize about organ donation is that it affects everyone. It can positively affect anyone in the future who

may have any types of problems from kidney disease on up to type

II diabetes.

8

Ron’s situation was as unique as anyone’s. He is just like anyone

else, except that he is as stubborn a football player that you want

to meet. He is a guy that felt that, once he found out that he had

chronic kidney disease, he ignored it, just as any normal person

would do. He was in denial about it, just as any normal person

would be. But the one thing about it was, as he started to realize

how his body was being affected and afflicted by chronic kidney disease and type II diabetes, by that time it was almost too late. He

had an amputation of his right foot. All of his toes on his left foot

are also amputated. He was on dialysis for 31⁄2 years.

As I talked to his transplant doctor, Dr. Dick Dickerman, Dr.

Dickerman noted to me that Ron would not make it to his 5th year

of dialysis. If anyone knows anything about dialysis, it is a process

that is extremely invasive and literally draining to the human

body. All of your blood is drained from your body, it goes through

a filter, and it goes back inside your body. You are talking about

a process that takes up to 4 to 5 hours a day. Well, Ron Springs

was going through that for 3 days a week for 31⁄2 years. He was

on that kidney waiting list for 31⁄2 years, as well. When it came

down to his family trying to help him out, trying to give him aid,

he had a niece that was willing to help, he had a nephew that also

was willing to help. Those two procedures were not successful.

When you take a look at the peaks and valleys that anyone that

is afflicted with chronic kidney disease and type II diabetes will go

through, it is really trying not just on you physically, but it is trying on your spirit. I have to commend Ron, himself, for being so

heroic in not giving up on life, because when you take a look at

what could happen with anyone that goes through the peaks and

valleys that Ron went through, he could have easily given up on

the process. He could have easily given up on life. But because of

his strong spiritual connection, he chose to hang in there. He chose

to be strong, not just for himself, but also he realized that his family and friends cared so much about him.

I think that is what prompted me, among other things, to help

Ron Springs. You know, it is one thing about being called a hero.

You are really put up on a pedestal. But what I want people to

know is you don’t want to put that pedestal up too high, because

we want everyone to realize that as long as you have two good kidneys, that you could qualify to become a living organ donor.

We don’t want anyone out there to think that this is an unattainable feat. This is something that can be done by anyone, whether

he is a football player, whether he is a Congressman. It doesn’t

matter. This is something that can be done by anyone.

I just want to say that I was just fortunate to be the one to do

that. We have felt that we owe it not just to our families, not just

to our friends, but to our community to start the foundation that

we started. It is called the Ron Springs and Everson Walls Gift for

Life Foundation. That foundation is going to be there to not just

provide access and awareness to the problems with chronic kidney

disease and type II diabetes, but our long-term goal would be to

bring the care and that awareness to the people.

Obviously, it affects everyone in the country, but we want to

really bring it to the under-served areas of the country and allow

them to understand that, No. 1, you need to be tested frequently

9

for chronic kidney disease, and, No. 2, if you are a candidate to be

a donor, then you should really consider doing that?

Mr. CLAY. Let me stop you there, Mr. Walls, and say thank you.

We just got word that we will shortly be taking votes on the floor,

but what we want to do now is try to ask you some questions and

get your comments.

Mr. WALLS. Sure.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walls follows:]

10

11

12

13

Mr. CLAY. I will go out of order and recognize my colleague and

friend, Jim Costa of California. You may proceed.

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, again, for your

collaboration and stepping up to the plate, as we say, to be one of

the original co-chairs of the Organ Donor and Tissue Caucus. I

think collectively we have great opportunity to do good things.

Mr. Walls, I suspect your friend and colleague, Mr. Springs, will

have an opportunity to see your testimony here if he is not watching it live, and smile a great deal for the passion with which you

have spoken of your friendship and your families. Certainly, that

is the type of information and the role model that we have to convey to others out there, because, as we know, the list is far too long

and too many die each year waiting, as your friend Mr. Springs

may have if it weren’t for your willingness to do your part as a

friend.

But we know that as we try to deal with registry lists, as we try

to pursue other efforts that are contained in this legislation that

Congressman Clay has written, that I intend to support wholeheartedly, we need to figure out other ways that we can use forums, the media, the organizations, some that are reflected here

today, to get that message out, and, as I noted in my testimony,

especially within minority communities.

I mean, I don’t know how many here in the audience, but I carry,

if I can find it here, my California driver’s license, and on the back

of the driver’s license we have the option to determine whether or

not we want to be listed on registry as a potential organ donor.

This morning I saw on the Today Show where a family was interviewed in which their daughter had been tragically killed a year

ago, and yet she had spoken, even as a 16 year old, months earlier

about wanting to be an organ donor if at some point something

happened. Sadly, something did happen, but her parents spoke

with great passion, as you do.

More of this effort needs to take place.

I want to ask you, because I have my own anecdotal stories, as

we all do, when did you first become aware of the potential of, as

we say, the gift of life, the potential that you and all of us have

as an organ donor? Is it through your friendship with Ron Springs,

or was there a previous awareness that came to you?

Mr. WALLS. Well, Congressman, I just have to say that diabetes,

fortunately for my family, is nowhere in our history. That is what

made what Ron and I went through pretty unique. I learned everything about chronic kidney disease and diabetes through my friendship with Ron and the problems that he was having.

You know, Ron is typical as any football player, got a lot of pride.

You know, when it comes to having these type of life-changing

problems, we try and sweep them under the rug.

Mr. COSTA. Right.

Mr. WALLS. But by listening to the conversations between my

wife Shreill and his wife Adriene by listening to those

conversations——

Mr. COSTA. It came home?

Mr. WALLS. It came home. The conversations would really upset

my wife. I didn’t really even get the original information from Ron,

himself. But then, as I started to delve more into it, as I started

14

to think about what can I do to help my friend, that is when I

started to do my research.

Mr. COSTA. You did your homework?

Mr. WALLS. I did my homework. And it was so strange that, you

know, they talk about diabetes being the silent killer.

Mr. COSTA. Yes.

Mr. WALLS. Well, I was typical of that, because no one really

wants to talk about it. That is our goal here today, to make sure

and get that out to the public as much as possible.

Mr. COSTA. Well, Mr. Walls, we look forward to your active participation as a partner in our collective effort. I know Mr. Clay and

myself and other colleagues have visited dialysis units within our

Districts, both with chronic and acute dialysis. I think you very,

very vividly described what I have seen when these patients come

to these clinics three times a week hoping against hope that there

may be a better future for themselves and their families.

This is very important work this afternoon. Mr. Clay, I look forward to continuing to work with your efforts.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Costa. Let me also thank you

for your leadership on reviving our caucus. I am looking forward

to working with you and the rest of our colleagues on issues like

this that raise the level of awareness as far as organ donation and

tissue donation are concerned. Thank you.

Mr. COSTA. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Walls, let me ask you. You know, we are all aware

of health disparities, as Mr. Costa said, and barriers to adequate

medical care facing the minority community. In your opinion, are

community care providers such as community health clinics and

others adequately focusing their attention on preventive measures

in order to reduce the number of patients with chronic kidney disease? Do you think there is enough attention on it?

Mr. WALLS. You know, Congressman, I would have to say that

the attention really needs to begin sooner than that. I think when

you start talking about the food that we serve our kids in the elementary schools which leads to childhood obesity, when you start

talking about the lack of interest in the nutrition of all Americans

here in this country, I think to me that is at the root of what the

problem is with chronic kidney disease and type II diabetes.

If you want to talk about prevention, then it really needs to start

first of all in the community. It needs to start in the home, and you

need to be aware of what you feed your children, what is healthy

for them, and be aware of the history, not only in all Americans,

but especially in minorities, and that our culture, itself, sometimes

allows us to be subject to these problems stemming from childhood

obesity.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

One area of concern in the medical ethics community is the level

of donor education provided to potential living donors. From your

experience, did you feel as though your transplant team worked to

provide you enough information about the potential risk and complications associated with organ donation?

Mr. WALLS. Well, I have to tell you, Congressman, when I first

decided to do this I was involved with some Kidney Foundation

programs and things of that nature, because Ron was involved with

15

it and I wanted to see what was going on with that. I have to say

that when I first walked into a room everyone knew I was going

to donate a kidney to Ron, and I felt like I was steak on a plate

because everyone was looking at me like, ah, fresh kidneys.

[Laughter.]

That is something that I just had to get over. That was my own

stigmatism there that I was dealing with. But I will say that the

process, itself, in my case was just extremely helpful. It was extremely supportive, because, as a donor, the medical community,

the team that I dealt with, they wanted to make sure that the

donor is the one that is pampered. That is the one that is really

the important piece of this puzzle. The recipient, himself, of course

they want him to receive a healthy kidney, but they want to make

sure that the donor is perfectly comfortable with the process, because any time you talk about laying your life down for someone,

having major surgery, they don’t want any apprehensions from the

potential donor, himself. That is the way they made me feel, and

I was very happy about that, and that is what made me feel comfortable about going through with the entire process.

Mr. CLAY. Now when we initially met and you shared with me

the fact that Ron Springs had no idea that you were going to donate your kidney to him, just how did you break the news to Mr.

Springs?

Mr. WALLS. Well, that is a crazy story because I didn’t break the

news to him. I don’t know if you are aware, but Ron’s son, Shawn

Springs, plays here in Washington for the Redskins.

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Mr. WALLS. He wears my number 24 because I am his godfather.

Mr. CLAY. You don’t hold that against him that he plays for the

Redskins, do you?

Mr. WALLS. I don’t hold it against him. It doesn’t help him catch

interceptions any, but it does help his reputation. [Laughter.]

I will say that, you know, when you talk about a guy like Ron

Springs, Ron is a guy that has been a very vocal person. He was

always the lawyer of the locker room. Some would say he has a big

mouth. Well, his son has a big mouth, as well. His son did a story

in the Washington Post while I was trying to keep this whole thing

under wraps, and as he was being interviewed about his father’s

health, because it was known that his father was in declining

health, then he let it slip that Everson is considering becoming an

organ donor to his father. Once that got out not only in the Washington Post, in the days of the Internet, in less than 30 minutes

it was on the cover of ESPN.com. So Ron found out through the

media that this was going to be done, and of course when he called

me he was so excited about it. I said yes, Ron, after taking the information that you gave me I didn’t tell you that I was a complete

match. Of course, Ron says, ‘‘Well, hell, let’s get this done.’’ [Laughter.]

I said, ‘‘When do you want to get it done?’’ He said, ‘‘Let’s do it

tomorrow.’’ I said, ‘‘Ron, I need some time to tie down my family

affairs. I have to have major surgery here.’’ But after a little bit

of negotiating and brow-beating on his part, we decided to not just

come up with a date, but in our case, because of us being high-profile citizens, being former athletes in the city of Dallas, we had to

16

give a false date, because if we didn’t then the hospital would have

been inundated with phone calls about when is this surgery going

to happen, and you really can’t have that when it comes to transplant surgery.

What we did was gave a false date in March, and then we actually surprised everyone and came up with the surgery at the end

of February on the 28th and it worked out well for everyone.

Mr. CLAY. And I am so glad it did.

You were required to go through both a physical and mental

screening process to ensure you were a suitable candidate for donating a kidney. I guess that was after you made up your mind

that you were going to go through with this. What kind of experience was that? I mean, did they adequately prepare you mentally

for, I guess, the pitfalls if anything went wrong?

Mr. WALLS. You know, one thing that concerned me then and

still concerns me now, obviously, you know, when you give your

kidney or any type of organ you are never sure exactly how long

it is going to last. I have heard some stories out there from others

who have received organ donations, and, of course, there is a time

life to these parts. The kidney may last 20 years for Ron. It may

only last 5 years for Mr. Springs. Those were always my concerns,

No. 1.

No. 2 is I was always in shape physically. I try to stay in shape.

I jog. I work out a lot, swim, and do whatever I can do to try and

stay physically fit, so I had no problems with the barrage of tests

that came my way. They have a test called glowfill, where you actually have to swallow iodine and get shot up with a glowfill substance that is allowed to test. It allows your specimen to illuminate

and they are able to better see exactly what is inside of you and

just how healthy your kidneys are. It is a very invasive procedure

that you just don’t want to step into lightly. I had to take a CAT

scan, itself, where they shoot you up with another substance that

goes through your body, and it feels almost like mint going from

your arm to the top of your head and it is very uncomfortable, and

that was for the CAT scan, itself.

Where Mr. Springs was afraid I might have a problem was on

the mental exam. [Laughter.]

There was a 500-question mental evaluation that he wasn’t sure

I was going to pass. Thank God I passed through that with flying

colors.

So in the midst of the little humor that we had while these tests

were going on, it was still a process that I just will not forget.

Mr. CLAY. Physically and mentally, how is Mr. Ron Springs

doing?

Mr. WALLS. Mr. Springs mentally has always had all his faculties. He has never changed his spirit and his approach to life. He

was always the clown of the party, the guy that you just love to

be around. That has always been there.

Physically, after Ron received the kidney—and this is the amazing thing about it—immediately after the surgery, I mean the day

after surgery, his eyes were more clear, his vision was better, his

face, although ashen at the time before surgery, all of the sudden

his color came to life. It was like if you didn’t see him from the

waist down, you would not know that Ron had any problems or

17

side effects from his chronic kidney disease and type II diabetes.

That is one thing that gives me joy as a donor is to see him, see

how he looks. Every day that I see him is a good feeling for me

that I feel that, if nothing else, I did all I could for my friend and

he is much better off because of it.

Mr. CLAY. And you and your friend have started a new foundation. Tell me what you expect to accomplish with the Everson

Walls, Ron Springs Gift for Life Foundation.

Mr. WALLS. Well, what we intend to do with this foundation is,

first of all, make sure that no one has to go through what Ron

Springs went through. Give them a support base, give them awareness of how you can be affected by chronic kidney disease and type

II diabetes, and also, for those that have a trust factor when it

comes to going to the doctors and getting tested, to make sure that

we go into those under-served neighborhoods and give them their

own test.

We want to also bring in former NFL players, as well, and get

the support from not only the NFL players but from the NFL and

the NFL Players Association and give them a helping hand in

bringing some of our fallen soldiers, so to speak, who are really ailing out there and have too much pride, really, to come to the doctor

and be tested to see what kind of shape their kidneys are in.

So along with helping out the retired players and all of those in

the under-served communities, we want to make sure that the

awareness is there for the entire community so they can realize

that, before it is too late, they need to come in and get tested, because we don’t want anyone to have to go through the dialysis process that Mr. Springs went through.

Mr. CLAY. I thank you for that. You can be assured that the Congressional Donor Caucus will be a partner with your and Mr.

Springs’ efforts.

We also thank you for your testimony today. I believe that, Mr.

Walls, you exemplify a new meaning of friend by what you did,

that act of courage that you demonstrated by giving a piece of you

to Mr. Springs in order to give him life. I am grateful for it. I am

grateful that you brought this to the attention of this Nation because you are so high profile, and I certainly appreciate your being

here today. Thank you.

Let me say that this will conclude the testimony for panel one.

Again, we thank you, Mr. Walls, for your testimony. You may be

excused.

At this time the subcommittee will recess and reconvene after

the votes. I think it will be within about a half hour to 40 minutes.

Thank you so very much.

[Recess.]

Mr. CLAY. The subcommittee will reconvene.

We will now take the second panel.

It is the policy of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses.

May I ask you all to rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Let the record show that each has answered in the affirmative.

18

We will begin the testimony of the second panel, but before we

do that I would like to invite my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, to make an opening statement.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your good

work on this matter. It is no secret that the whole organ donation

profession and effort has benefited my family. My brother-in-law is

a live liver donor recipient, and he is doing quite well after a very

serious operation back 6 years ago. He is doing great. You wouldn’t

know that he went through that, raising three young children with

my sister, and he is doing fine.

But I am aware of the pressures and anxieties that affect families who are in this position. I have become very familiar with the

whole process and the waiting list and the pain and suffering that

a lot of families go through who have family members who do not

get a transplant in time and those who are currently waiting.

So I think that there is a gap between what legislatively we can

do to help and what science allows us to do. I believe that there

is an education process that needs to go forward in this country.

I think we have to redouble our efforts to help those families that

are in need of transplants. I think that we can do much to expedite

this process through our laws and regulations, and I think that the

American people deserve better than what we are giving them

right now, given the miracles of science that are allowing these donations to occur.

The technology, the medicines, the anti-rejection medicines that

are now available that make this all possible are going forward in

leaps and bounds, and I don’t think that our legislation and our

regulatory framework allows us to reap the fullest benefit of the

wonderful science that is being done in this country and around the

world. I am well aware that some of the greatest gains in the early

years of live organ donation came from overseas, and so we can

benefit from those efforts and we can help them along, as well.

But the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, I am just very happy that

you are focusing on this. I know there are thousands and thousands and thousands of families that wish for your success in marshalling our efforts in this regard and strengthening our organ

donor program.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Lynch.

Let me also say I am thankful for you coming forward today and

being a part of this hearing, as well as the other two Members who

are not members of this committee but came forward because of

their keen interest in this issue of organ and tissue donation. I appreciate your being here today.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. On our second panel we have a distinguished group

of individuals who are highly qualified to address issues associated

with organ donation from a variety of important perspectives, and

also included on this second panel is a witness that was supposed

to be part of the first panel, but let me welcome Ms. Elizabeth

Rubin.

Thank you for being here. I understand you had a little difficulty,

but we are glad you made it anyway.

19

She is a former president and current board member of the

Transplant Recipients International Organization [TRIO]. Ms.

Rubin was diagnosed with liver disease nearly 15 years ago following the birth of her second child, but was fortunate enough to receive a liver transplant at the University of Pittsburgh Medical

Center soon after. Since then, Ms. Rubin has dedicated her time

and energy to volunteering for several non-profits involving her two

passions, music and organ donor awareness. What a mixture.

Through her work with TRIO, she has become a highly distinguished public representative in the areas of donor awareness, education, support, and advocacy. In addition to TRIO, she also serves

on the Speaker’s Bureau of her local organ procurement organization and serves as president of a community music school in Media,

PA.

Ms. Rubin resides in the greater Philadelphia area with her husband, Bruce, and their two daughters, Isabel and Beatrice.

Thank you for being here.

Also we have Dr. James Burdick, who serves as Director of the

Division of Transplantation at the Health Resources and Services

Administration of HHS. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Burdick was

a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, as well

as a past president of the United Network for Organ Sharing

[UNOS].

Thank you for being here, Doctor.

We also have Dr. Timothy L. Pruett, who is director of Transplantation at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville and also serves as president of the Organ Procurement

and Transplantation Network and the United Network for Organ

Sharing. He previously chaired the open UNOS Membership and

Professional Standards Committee as well as its Policy Compliance

Subcommittee, and also served on its Ethics and Pediatric Transplantation Committees.

We appreciate your time here today.

Ms. Sue Dunn is the president-elect of the Association of Organ

Procurement Organizations, as well as president and CEO of Donor

Alliance, a federally designated organ procurement organization

based in Denver, CO. Ms. Dunn serves on a variety of United Network for Organ Sharing committees, and continues to represent the

donation community through her participation with the Association

of Organ Procurement Organizations and the Donor Awareness

Council.

We are so glad to see you today.

Dr. Clive O. Callender is the founder of the National Minority

Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program [MOTTEP], which is

dedicated to increasing minority donation rates nationally.

MOTTEP is the first national organization to identify a twofold solution to the No. 1 problem in transplantation, the shortage of donors. The solution includes decreasing the number of persons being

added to the national waiting list through a health promotion disease prevention campaign, while simultaneously increasing the

number of minority donors.

Dr. Callender serves as the chairman of the Department of Surgery at the Howard University Hospital and as a professor at the

20

Howard University College of Medicine. He is a graduate of BW

Hunter College and Mahari Medical College.

Welcome, Doctor. I am so glad to get the opportunity to meet

you.

Dr. Jeffrey Crippin is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program at Barnes Jewish Hospital and a professor of Medicine at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis,

which both facilities I represent proudly. He is a graduate of the

University of Notre Dame and the University of Kansas School of

Medicine and is the immediate past president of the American Society of Transplantation.

I want to welcome you all to today’s hearing.

I will just ask each witness to be aware that you will have a 5-

minute clock. Would you please try to observe it in your opening

statements.

We will start here with Dr. Burdick. You may proceed.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES BURDICK, M.D., DIRECTOR, DIVISION

OF TRANSPLANTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES; TIMOTHY PRUETT, M.D., PRESIDENT,

UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; SUSAN DUNN,

PRESIDENT-ELECT, ASSOCIATION OF ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATIONS; CLIVE O. CALLENDER, M.D., FOUNDER, MINORITY ORGAN TISSUE TRANSPLANT EDUCATION

PROGRAM; JEFFREY S. CRIPPIN, M.D., PAST PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRANSPLANTATION; AND ELIZABETH M.P. RUBIN

STATEMENT OF JAMES BURDICK, M.D.

Dr. BURDICK. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman

Clay, Mr. Lynch. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you

today on behalf of the Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA], to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Division of Transplantation in strengthening our Nation’s organ donor

programs and awareness activities.

I appreciate your continuing support of the organ donation and

transplantation programs and your organization of this very heartwarming and wonderful hearing.

The need for organ transplants continues to grow, and this demand continues to outpace the supply of transplantable organs.

Nineteen people in this country will die every day because a lifesaving organ does not become available to them. During the past

decade, the number of deceased donors increased between 2 to 3

percent annually, while the annual growth rate in the number of

individuals waiting for an organ transplant increased by approximately 8 percent. Even with the recent unprecedented 10.8 percent

increase in the number of deceased donors in 2004, followed by a

6.2 percent increase in 2005 related to the Donation Breakthrough

Collaboratives, there still were about 97,000 individuals waiting for

an organ transplant at the end of 2006, as you recognized, Chairman Clay, in your initial remarks.

HRSA is responsible for administering a number of organ donation and transplantation programs. The National Organ Transplant

Act [NOTA], Public Law 98–507, as amended, authorized the creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:33 Jul 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43028.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
21

ation and operation of the Organ Procurement Transplant Network, the operation of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, and grants and contracts to conduct projects designed to increase the number of organ donations.

Additional program authorities were provided by the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act [ODRIA], some called the

Frist bill, Public Law 108–216, which amended NOTA to help increase the number of organ donors and number of organs made

available for transplantation.

The key additional authorities under ODRIA include grants to

States to support organ donation awareness; grants and contracts

to support public education and outreach activities designed to increase the number of organ donors, including living donors; grants

to qualified organ procurement organizations and hospitals to establish programs to increase the rate of organ donation; the expansion of grantmaking authority, to include public institutions; the

development and dissemination of educational materials to inform

health care professionals and other appropriate professionals about

organ, tissue, and eye donation; financial assistance to living donors to help defray travel and other incidental, non-medical expenses; and mechanisms to evaluate the long-term effects of living

organ donation.

In 2006 a total of 28,923 organ transplant operations were performed nationwide, and that was up from 28,112 the year before,

a little under 2,000 [sic] more. From these operations in the year

2006, 31,184 organs were transplanted. Of that number, about 78

percent were deceased donors, 22 percent living donors.

At HRSA, one of the ways we are keeping donation efforts on the

fast track is through our highly successful Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative. The Collaborative brings together donation

professionals and hospital leaders to identify and share best practices to maximize organ donation in their facilities. The goal is to

raise the number to 75 percent of eligible donors actually becoming

donors. The results are most impressive. Since 2003, the number

of hospitals that have achieved the 75 percent goal has increased

from 55 to 301. The national average of donation has risen by 10

percent across the board, and we have over 20 percent more actual

transplants.

This year HHS joined with private companies and organizations

across America in encouraging their employees to Give Five, Save

Lives. The Give Five, Save Lives challenge asked employees to support donation by taking 5 minutes out of their work day to enroll

in a State organ donor registry or sign a donor card.

In February, HRSA announced the results of a 2005 Gallup Organization survey which indicates that Americans continue to

strongly support the donation of organs and tissues for transplantation. More important, the survey also found that 52 percent of

Americans have taken personal actions to become organ donors, up

from about 28 percent in a similar survey done in 1993.

Despite these advances, HRSA is humbled by the fact that people

are still dying because of the lack of available organs. In our vigilance, HRSA sustains support for other donation programs. The

OPTN, which HRSA manages, continues to improve the efficiency

of the organ transplantation system by improving organ allocation

22

policies and monitoring policy compliance by transplant programs

and OPOs. Grants were awarded to OPOs and hospitals to establish programs coordinating organ donation activities.

In our outreach efforts, HRSA maintains support for public and

professional education programs. Working together, we are making

great strides, but we still have a long way to go.

We recently celebrated 50 years since the first successful organ

transplant, which was done in Massachusetts, and we have come

a long way; however, while nearly 29,000 individuals received lifesaving transplants in 2006, the need to increase the number of successful transplants remains critical.

There are close to 97,000 patients on the national waiting list,

and 19 will die every day because a life-saving organ does not become available to them. Working together, we can change these

numbers. HRSA is proud of its leadership role in this most worthwhile effort, and there are clear signs we are moving in the right

direction, but we must do everything we can to keep the momentum going.

So, finally, thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity

to come here today on behalf of all of those waiting for a transplant

to discuss the organ donation and transplantation and for your

dedication and interest to these vital programs.

Eventually I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Burdick follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Doctor.

Dr. Pruett, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY PRUETT, M.D.

Dr. PRUETT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lynch, I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak to you today. I would also like to applaud

the Congressional Organ Donor and Tissue Caucus for what it has

done and what it will do in the future, and would also like to applaud you for the Everson Walls and Ron Springs Organ Donation

Support Act of 2007. It speaks legions to what we can do for our

citizens.

My name is Timothy Pruett. I am the Strickler Family Professor

of Transplantation and Surgery at the University of Virginia and

the current president of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the United Network for Organ Sharing. For all

that mouthful, the UNOS is a non-profit organization which operates the OPTM contract with HRSA, but it is not my intent today

to speak as an official representative of the transplant community;

rather, I would like to speak for the patients and families that I

have seen as an individual providing transplant care for the past

20 years.

For the most part, people of all ages with end-stage kidney, liver,

heart, and lung problems will live longer and better with an organ

transplant than with other forms of medical support. Unfortunately, the numbers of people waiting for the organs greatly outstrips organ availability from deceased individuals, and because of

increased waiting time the continuing gap between the numbers of

people waiting and organs available, the number of Americans like

Mr. Walls earlier described today step forward every year to donate

an organ to another person. And although many types of organs

can be transplanted with live organs, this amazing act of generosity is most frequent with those that need and receive kidney transplants.

From a systems perspective, a kidney from a live donor is best.

It lasts longer in the recipient. It is an easier operation to plan for

the recipient and the medical center. It functions more quickly and

reliably than one from a deceased donor. In short, if you needed a

kidney, you would want to receive one from someone that is alive

and not dead.

The first kidney transplant that was performed came from a live

donor, as Dr. Burdick said. In 2006 over 30 percent of the kidneys

transplanted in the United States came from live organ donors. It

is a form of organ donation that our people have embraced for more

than 50 years.

The executive and legislative branches of the Government have

recently weighed in regarding the value of live organ donation. Because there are so many instances where Americans are willing to

donate but biology gets in the way, a variety of pair donation have

been proposed to increase in this type of donation.

Congress has recently addressed the issue through legislation, is

on the verge of passing H.R. 710, the bill named for former Representative Charlie Norwood. That bill officially provides what the

Department of Justice has recently approved in memo form, that

pair donation between live donors and recipients does not conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:33 Jul 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43028.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
33

stitute valuable consideration, is therefore legal under Section 301

of NOTA.

In 2006 a directive was published in the Federal Register instructing the OPM to develop policies regarding living organ donors, living organ recipients, including policies for equitable allocation of living donor organs, in accordance with section 121.8 of the

final rule.

It is clear that the value of living organ donation and transplantation is an activity to be encouraged from the perspective of those

who need to receive organs, the medical community, those that reimburse organ transplantation, and the Government and oversight

community.

The live donor does an extraordinary act, lying down on an operating room table, giving a piece of himself or herself for another

person, placing one’s health and safety in the hands of doctors and

nurses when there is no direct medical benefit for that person. Our

society and Treasury gets a great deal of benefit from this form of

generosity. Unfortunately, the pain of recovery from the procedure

of removing a kidney or any other organ is often not the only kind

of pain that the donor suffers. Financial pain is also very common.

Significant financial disincentive to be an organ donor exists in

the United States. This comes in many forms: lost wages of the

donor and the family support members, temporary change in the

ability to perform one’s job during the recovery period, travel costs

incurred during the evaluation to be a donor, potential ability to

obtain and collect insurance benefits as a consequence of the donation process.

Parenthetically, Mr. Walls asked me to speak on this because he

had difficulty obtaining life insurance after he was a donor for several months prior to convincing them that he would be able to live

a long life.

We have no safety net for those who want to donate organs. Unfortunately, the kidney donation is relatively safe, with a very low

risk of death or minimal long-term morbidity, but there are multiple reports in the transplant and lay literature, and even more

personal anecdotes of significant financial hardship associated with

the live organ process which have been communicated to us. This

is particularly true for those individuals with personal incomes at

the lower end of our financial earnings spectrum.

Although the costs of the medical workup are covered by the recipient’s payer, for the person without means the personal savings,

family, or employee’s ability to help defray the additional expenses

just do not exist.

As a society, we gain much in the quality of life from recipients

and financial benefits of the acts of generosity that occur daily

through organ donation.

I recently gave a talk entitled, The Ethical Aspects of Live Organ

Donation, and during the discussion at this international meeting

there was unanimous agreement that live organ donation was not

cost neutral for any donor in any country. Not only did the donation cost the organ, or the part thereof, but it usually costs sums

of moneys in lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses.

In this forum, the international community felt that we should

be able to do better. In fact, if we can create a model that miniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:33 Jul 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43028.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
34

mizes the personal cost to the live organ donor and its family, we

are likely to see more donors from people at the lower end of the

financial spectrum step forward to donate for the benefit of their

loved ones.

An important point of the goal is that the projected cost of making organ donation cost neutral would not be more than the savings to the system, as it costs more to keep someone on dialysis

than to transplant them.

The major areas to be addressed should include health insurance,

automatic Medicare eligible or some such variant in the event that

the organ donor develops a medical condition requiring treatment,

short-term disability and life insurance for those people who are either unable to return to work or have significant catastrophic

events, reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, and a variety of

methods are available to accomplish this means.

Mr. CLAY. Doctor, may I ask you to summarize, please?

Dr. PRUETT. Yes.

The financial benefits of our society are real, and we need to continue to develop new methods and systems that increase the numbers of organs from deceased donors. Simply to look at the live

organ donation system, we penalize the patient who wants to donate an organ. We can do better.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pruett follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much.

Let me now recognize Ms. Dunn. You may proceed with your testimony, please.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Chairman Clay, Mr. Lynch. My name is

Sue Dunn, and I am president-elect of the Association of Organ

Procurement Organizations [AOPO]. I am also president and CEO

of Donor Alliance, the non-profit, federally designated organ procurement organization [OPO], that serves Colorado and most of

Wyoming.

It is my privilege to offer you my perspective today as a donation

professional, one of thousands across the country who honor the decisions of deceased individuals and families to save lives as organ

and tissue donors.

OPOs are responsible for the identification and care of organ donors and their families, organ recovery and preservation, transportation, and data collection regarding deceased organ donors. OPO’s

staff work with donor families and educate medical staff and the

general public about organ donation. The priority of OPOs has always been to respect donors’ wishes and to provide support to

donor families during the most difficult time of their lives.

Since starting my career as a donor coordinator over 23 years

ago, I have been continually inspired by the capacity of individuals

and families to give the gift of life. Thanks to these organ donors

and the partnership of Federal and State government, OPOs, the

Nation’s largest hospitals and transplant programs, Colorado, Wyoming, and the rest of the Nation have seen unprecedented gains in

saving lives through transplantation.

In the donation service area that I am responsible for of Colorado

and Wyoming, the number of deceased organ donors increased by

40 percent from 2003 to 2006, and this also marked with a 25 percent increase nationwide.

Given that only 1 percent of all hospital deaths occur under circumstances that medically allow for organ donation, every single

donation opportunity is crucial. Several factors have helped Colorado, Wyoming, and the rest of the Nation convert more opportunities into gifts of life than ever before.

First, we made the responsibility for every organ donation opportunity a shared one, with Government, donor hospitals, OPOs,

transplant centers, medical examiners, and all others equally being

accountable for success. In Colorado and Wyoming, hospitals took

ownership of their critical role in the process by working collaboratively with us in adopting nationally recognized best practices.

Second, our focus on data-driven performance measures has

helped all parties involved focus on every donor and every organ

every single time. When the Organ Donation and Transplantation

Breakthrough Collaborative set goals of 75 percent conversion rate

and 3.75 organs transplanted per donor, I have to say we were all

in disbelief. The bar was set very high. But no more.

I want to share with you our experience at Donor Alliance. Over

the past 2 years, our conversion rates have consistently been at 80

percent. That means 8 out of every 10 eligible donor’s organs are

transplanted. Many factors have contributed to this success: an

40

early referral system, trained family support coordinators, an effective donor registry, an organizational focus of placing all organs in

active local transplant programs.

The organs transplanted per donor metric has proven a bit more

of a challenge. In certain demographic groups we are placing 4.0

organs per donor; however, our overall average is only 3.3. The demographic mix, the nature of injuries, and the overall health of the

donor does impact organ placement. Rigorous post-donor reviews

are conducted with our staff and our medical director to see how

we can improve those practices after every case.

Third, OPOs have benefited from the active involvement of hospital leadership. By developing relationships with senior leadership

at large donor hospitals, hospital systems, and the State hospital

associations, donation becomes an institution-wide effort, not simply the responsibility of critical care nurses or physicians. Most

hospitals now include some sort of measure of donation on their organizational dashboards that are circulated to the executive team,

as well as their boards of directors.

With this momentum and extraordinary results, the OPO community has worked to sustain and expand the efforts of the Joint

Commission accreditation standards, implementing the Centers for

Medicare and Medicaid services conditions of participation for

OPOs, spreading the Collaborative, and championing the revised

Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. The UAGA, which, as of September

21st, had been adopted by 20 States and had legislation pending

in others, the UAGA represents a significant, far-reaching effect,

and it is important to note that it only relates to deceased donors.

In general, the UAGA incorporates a number of important features. Most importantly for this discussion today is the creation of

State donor registries, which allow individuals to enroll in Stateauthorized computer donor registries. Most of these are managed

under the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Donor registries have several key benefits. First, by recording

one’s wishes in a searchable data base, it makes sure that the donor’s wish is honored. Second, we also know that obtaining consent

at the very front end of the case allows us to move to organ placement in a much quicker fashion.

In Colorado and Wyoming, along with other parts of the United

States, more than 40 percent of our organ donors are off of the registry, and 50 percent of our tissue donors.

To sum up, Colorado and Wyoming and the rest of the Nation

have benefited from the concerted efforts of the past several years.

As you know, an increase in donor organs not only saves lives, but

also saves the Federal Government millions of dollars in dialysis

and other health care costs.

Thank you for helping us sustain and build our mission to honor

donors’ wishes, support donor families, and save lives.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunn follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Dunn, for your testimony.

Now we will go to Dr. Callender. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF CLIVE O. CALLENDER, M.D.

Dr. CALLENDER. I am Dr. Clive Callender, transplant surgeon at

Howard University Hospital, and the founder and principal investigator of MOTTEP.

MOTTEP is addressing the No. 1 problem in transplantation

today, the shortage of organ donors. Because of this shortage, nearly 20 people die every day, and taxpayers spend $40,000 per patient per year for kidney dialysis treatments. The MOTTEP program provides organs, which saves lives and over time decreases

health care expenditures on dialysis by $235 million for kidneys,

alone.

Since 1982, 25 years ago, we have participated in the growth and

development of a national donor education program which relies on

a grassroots strategy that emphasizes community education and

empowerment, requiring the community to be an efficient and economically appropriate change agent.

The methodology we use provides compelling evidence of the efficiency of a community-based, grassroots approach, delivering a

two-pronged message aimed at increasing donation rates and promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyle behaviors and practices.

The key for its success is utilizing a methodology that emphasizes the use of culturally sensitive and ethnically similar community individuals who are transplant recipients, donors, and their

family members as messengers.

When we started this effort in the African American community

in 1982, it was stated to me that Blacks don’t and won’t donate organs. Ten years later, our success in the African American community resulted in the conceptualization of MOTTEP and expanded

our effort into all minority populations. Ten years after this, as

table one demonstrates, minorities now donate in proportion to

their population distribution.

When we look at our second table, the Scientific Transplant Registry has data that demonstrates that when MOTTEP sites are involved, when compared and contrasted with non-MOTTEP sites, we

have significantly improved donation rates when compared to regions in which there were no MOTTEP sites.

Our final table shows that the number of donors, the organ donors per million, and donation percentages have statistically increased in all minority groups. In fact, while minorities represent

25 percent of the American population, the number of minority donation percentages has increased over that 10 year period from 15

percent to 30 percent.

Since 50 percent of all kidney transplants’ survival ranges from

5.3 to 12.2 years, and most more than 9 years, it is clear that the

financial benefit to the Government supporting a national donor

education program such as we talk about would save millions of

dollars. We break it down. Since dialysis costs in excess of $40,000

per patient per year, much of which are taxpayers’ dollars, and

transplants break even after 3 years, this would provide an average savings of at least $30,000 per year for each year the organ

54

survives over 3 years. Assuming an organ survival rate of 6 years,

each donor organ would save at least $135,000 per donor.

Assuming a kidney transplant’s cost after 3 years would be $10,000, looking at the graphics that we just talked about, it is

clear that the cost/benefit ratio is one that is a worthy investment

when we consider the benefits greatly outweigh the under-funded

support that is provided to national donor education programs.

Now, these data are based upon the current census that identifies 25 percent of the American population as minorities. The

MOTTEP goal is by 2010 to have 35 percent of the donors being

minorities and to have African Americans and Latinos to increase

from 41 organ donors per million to 50 organ donors per million.

Should this occur, we would recover 1,750 minority donor organs

and save the Government $236 million.

While MOTTEP has received a total of $16 million from the Federal Government between 1992 and now, none of these dollars have

been allocated for organ donation after 2007. This would mean this

unique program, which has made a national contribution to the

donor shortage, would cease to exist after mid-year 2008. Currently, MOTTEP exists at 11 sites, only 5 of which are partially

funded. To optimize this unique community grassroots education

program, funding for 15 to 25 sites would require $3 million to $5

million per year for an additional 5 years, a small amount when

compared to the $236 million saved from kidney transplants, alone,

and the more than $1 billion saved when kidneys, livers, hearts,

and other organs are combined.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Callender follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that testimony, Doctor.

Now we will go to Dr. Crippin. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. CRIPPIN, M.D.

Dr. CRIPPIN. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, Mr. Lynch. On behalf of the American Society of Transplantation, representing the

majority of our Nation’s professionals engaged in solid organ transplantation, we applaud your leadership for convening this forum

today to focus on organ donation and our Nation’s ability to deliver

the gift of life to the thousands of patients currently awaiting a

life-saving donor organ.

Again, my name is Dr. Jeff Crippin, and I am the immediate past

president of the American Society of Transplantation and the medical director of the liver transplant program at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis.

I would like to focus very briefly on the efforts of our society on

a national level, as well as two efforts that we focus on back home

in St. Louis.

The American Society of Transplantation knows the education

and awareness of patients and physicians, alike, is crucial to the

delivery of effective health care. The Society has developed several

educational programs to provide updated information on issues regarding organ failure and its complications, the transplant evaluation, and the transplant procedure, itself. We have also crafted a

program devoted to the care and maintenance of the transplant

after it has occurred.

Through these efforts, the AST strives to minimize and eliminate

any questions or confusion that may arise as a patient is considering this life-saving surgery, before and after the transplant.

In our own institution in Missouri at Barnes Jewish Hospital in

Washington University School of Medicine, Dr. Amy Waterman, a

social psychologist and assistant professor of medicine in the Division of General Medical Sciences, is conducting ground-breaking

work examining increased patient awareness regarding kidney

transplantation. Dr. Waterman is currently developing living kidney donation materials focusing on racial differences and attitudes

about diabetes and organ donations. Part of her work is actually

funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration

through a grant looking at educating patients at kidney dialysis

centers about the availability of kidney transplantation.

The data obtained by Dr. Waterman and her colleagues will

hopefully lay the groundwork for similar programs across America

as we continue to fight the battle against mis-information and the

lack of information regarding this life-saving therapy.

In an effort to reach patients in areas that remain under-served

in our State and areas not necessarily knowledgeable about transplantation, I have spent the last 41⁄2 years conducting the patient

outreach clinic in rural areas, and particularly in southeast Missouri.

The city of Cape Gerardo is a town of approximately 35,000, as

you know, about 120 miles southeast of the St. Louis area. As I

have found, for various reasons, many of the town’s citizens do not

like to leave or travel to large urban settings and often refuse a referral to the big city, in spite of a defined need. My presence has

70

allowed these patients and their physicians to see the need for solid

organ transplantation and simplified their need.

Finally, in 1999 the American Society of Transplantation and

other transplant organizations worked closely with Congress to

pass and enact legislation providing up to 6 weeks of paid leave for

Federal employees seeking to donate a life-saving donor organ.

Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland spearheaded this initiative in the House of Representatives.

In addition to these Federal laws, the American Society of Transplantation has initiated its own private campaign entitled the AST

Employee Leave and Donation Program. The purpose of this campaign is for our transplant physician members to reach out to corporate America and encourage them to amend their employee leave

policies to allow adequate time for employees to serve as a living

donor. This has resulted in many companies changing their rules

and removing a financial disincentive to donation.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American

Society of Transplantation thanks you for the opportunity to participate in today’s forum. We applaud and commend your leadership and efforts on this important issue. Of note, the American Society of Transplantation endorsed H.R. 3635 last evening. We look

forward to your efforts in getting the bill passed.

The gift of life, though often surrounded by tragic circumstances,

can prolong the lives of affected Americans, allowing them to maintain their roles as active and productive citizens of our great Nation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crippin follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

76

Mr. CLAY. I thank you very much, Dr. Crippin. Thank you for the

endorsement of the legislation.

Ms. Rubin, you will be the final witness of this panel, and then

we will get to the question period. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH M.P. RUBIN

Ms. RUBIN. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for allowing

me to speak today. My name is Elizabeth Rubin, and I am here to

represent transplant recipients and patient advocacy groups.

As Chairman Clay already reported, I had a liver transplant 15

years ago. At the time, I had a very young family—a 4 year old

daughter and a newborn. I took my good health for granted, and

when I suddenly learned that my liver was not functioning properly I did not take it seriously. I chose to ignore the symptoms of

lethargy and nausea to continue with my daily activities. After my

gastroenterologist had done all the testing he could, coming up

with no clear diagnosis, the test for hepatitis and other known liver

diseases came back negative. He called my husband and told him,

‘‘You need to get her to a hospital that can handle this, like the

University of Pittsburgh, immediately.’’

So we did, complete with little children in tow, much to the chagrin of my in-laws, and within 5 days I was listed for a liver transplant, entering into that cavern of the unknown, because in those

days there wasn’t much published information on what to expect

while waiting for or going through a transplant.

This was the picture that sold my story, the one the doctors used

to argue MetLife Benefit to get me on the transplant waiting list.

I spent close to 5 months in Pittsburgh for them in and out of the

hospital under the watchful eyes of Dr. Starsal and his protegee

John Fung, and spent the remainder of the time trying to get my

body to accept the foreign organ.

The diagnosis that I was finally given for my liver failure was

Cryptogenic Cirrhosis, which had no cause and therefore should

not repeat itself in my system.

There were some complications along the way, and it was not

until my 4th year post-transplant that things started to level off

and I could finally return to my life, my new, normal life.

Talk about a lesson in mortality.

The increase in the number of patients on the transplant waiting

list is both a positive and negative sign of what has occurred in the

transplant world—positive because improvements in medical technology have made it possible for more patients to be listed for

transplant, but negative because the number of donors has not increased at the same pace as the number of candidates.

It is imperative that we come up with recommendations on how

to increase the number of donors to regulate this country’s organ

and tissue donor system so that no transplant candidate will be

turned away, forced to die rather than to celebrate a second chance

at life, as I have been so fortunate to be able to do.

In preparing my testimony today, I consulted with several of my

transplant friends to get their input. As a member of the Board of

TRIO, serving in many positions, including President of the Board,

as well as a transplant recipient, myself, I feel as though I represent the heart of the transplant community. TRIO’s mission is to

77

improve the quality of lives touched by the miracle of transplantation through support, advocacy, education, and awareness. As a

non-profit, international organization, TRIO has been in existence

for over 20 years. Many of our members are transplant recipients.

We are proof that transplantation works.

You can read more about what TRIO has done to improve the

awareness of the need for donors in my full testimony.

The efforts of TRIO members and other patient advocacy groups

over the past decade have improved the rate of donation, but not

enough. There are five areas in which I recommend we concentrate

our efforts in tackling the donor shortage.

First of all, for anatomical donors, we should continue to expand

the criteria for viable donation. Research should be continued to

determine what other categories of potential donors may be acceptable. This may include the use of extended donors and cardiac

death patients. I would also suggest that we support and promote

stem cell research.

Second, we need to push for a standardization of State registries

in all States of this country. It has already been proven that the

number of donors has increased in States where registries exist,

but not all States have passed laws that favor donor registries. Perhaps in addition to drivers license centers, people should be given

the option to sign up on line, as well. Nationwide practice of this

and a national data base would allow OPOs throughout the country

to access the donor list no matter where a potential donor was at

the time he was declared brain dead.

In addition, regulations need to be standardized and regulated

across the United States with regard to the integration of organ donation responsibilities among hospital staff, OPOs, and State registries. The Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative has already proven that this will increase the percentage of organ donors,

but this collaborative needs to be extended to all hospitals, OPOs,

and State registries in the United States.

Another recommendation is that we seriously examine the possibility of presumed consent as a law of the land. If an examination

of the data available from countries using this approach indicates

that this could be feasible in the United States, we could then enlist technology to allow for online opting out or allow people to go

to State registry locations to physically opt out.

If presumed consent is not deemed feasible, then we should dedicate some time and resources to finding acceptable methods of offering incentives to people who are considering signing up to be

organ donors.

My final recommendation for deceased donors at this time is that

more effort and funding be put into educating the public on the

need and reasonableness of organ donation. Organizations such as

TRIO that are successful at doing this should be awarded grants

to continue and expand their programs.

Two areas where I can see expansion of donor awareness education are driver’s education courses and Web sites on the Internet.

Websites are an excellent example of technology’s use to provide

public access to a wealth of information and reports for patients

and the general public.

For living donors, I also have a few recommendations.

78

Among the new programs aimed at increasing the use of living

donors has been the establishment, as previously stated, by some

OPTM members of directed donation programs. List and pair programs should be universally accepted at all transplant centers.

Regulations need to be established and followed, thus removing the

question of preferential treatment.

Another suggestion for living donors is to offer each and every

one of them health and life insurance policies and long-term care

and followup post donation. Even though transplant surgery has

become less risky, living organ donation still requires one to go

through unnecessary surgery, which may cause problems during or

after surgery.

I have one more recommendation which, although it may not directly impact the number of donors, does impact the longevity of

the lives of transplant recipients. It is crucial that we push through

the bill promoting lifetime immunosuppressive coverage that has

been sitting in Congress for years.

It is economically short-sighted to be pushing for improvements

in the U.S. organ donor program if we do not concern ourselves

with the fact that transplant recipients who cannot afford to pay

for their transplant medications once their coverage runs out are

dying. If they don’t die, they may be fortunate to receive a second

transplant, which is just stupid when there is already such a shortage of organs.

In closing, I would like to thank this committee once again for

holding this hearing to discuss the potential opportunities for

strengthening and improving our Nation’s organ donor programs.

I am honored to have been invited, and I hope that some of my recommendations will be considered. I also hope that discussions such

as these will continue so that those of us living in the world of

transplantation can help to continually update and improve the

procedures and regulations by which transplant candidates live or

die.

Finally, I hope that everyone in this room who is attending this

hearing has signed up to be an organ donor and has passed this

information on to all their family and friends and anyone else they

know.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rubin follows:]

79

80

81

82

83

84

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Rubin.

Let me thank the entire panel for their expert testimony.

Since you have had the last word as part of the panel, I am going

to let you start off with the questioning. Ms. Rubin, I understand

you moved to the Pittsburgh area temporarily in order to have your

transplant done at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. I

am wondering if you feel having to move, albeit temporarily, was

a significant disruption to you and your family’s quality of life?

More specifically, do you feel there are enough transplant programs

nationwide that are able to serve the population adequately?

Ms. RUBIN. Well, remember this was 15 years ago. If I were to

need a transplant now, I think I probably would have stayed in

Philadelphia, but at the time Pittsburgh was the best-known for

treating unknown diseases that required transplant.

It was inconvenient for us to move to Pittsburgh; however, my

husband’s company was very understanding and we did get a lot

of help from family and friends and people we met out there as far

as finding a place to live and care for our children, etc.

Mr. CLAY. You know, your testimony also brought out the fact of

availability. I know a few years back I read about some programs

in several States that offered prisoners the opportunity to be organ

donors. What are your thoughts about prisoners being allowed to

be organ donors?

Ms. RUBIN. Well, I actually am in favor of it, speaking personally. I don’t know that other members of TRIO or other patient advocacy groups would agree, but I am in favor of it. If a prisoner

wishes to donate, I think is a wonderful way for them to give back.

I think that it will be a hard thing to sell to the general public,

and I think it is going to be hard for some potential recipients,

some candidates, to accept an organ from a prisoner, because there

are people who believe that they adopt certain physical and mental

characteristics from their donor.

Mr. CLAY. But you would have accepted the organ?

Ms. RUBIN. I would have accepted. I mean, we were getting to

the point where Pittsburgh was doing research on pigs and we

would have accepted that, too.

Mr. CLAY. I see. Well, thank you for that.

The next question is for both Drs. Crippin and Callender. It relates to cost analysis, cost of keeping a patient on dialysis versus

the transplantation surgery and the cost of that, who those costs

weigh out at the end. Go ahead, Dr. Callender. You can start.

Dr. CALLENDER. OK. Well, this was an issue that I looked at because it was clear that dialysis costs about $40,000 per patient per

year, and many may not realize that the only place in this country

where we have universal health is actually in end-stage renal disease, because we have Medicare and we have Medicaid, so well

over 90 percent of patients that have end-stage renal disease actually have health coverage, so therefore we can get the data. The

data does reflect that it costs about $40,000 per patient per year

for dialysis, as contrasted with what you would pay for a transplant where you may have some cost in the first couple of years,

but after the third year you are talking about break-even. That is

why I made the comment.

85

Since most transplants would survive, based upon our studies

over the half life, most of them would survive for more than 6

years. We are talking about a savings for each increased donor that

you get of maybe $135,000 per donor because of the fact that it is

only about $10,000 a year for taking care of a patient for a transplant after the third year, which means that every time you have

a donor you have a positive situation. When you take somebody off

of the dialysis list and get them transplanted, you have effectively

saved the taxpayers and the Government a significant amount of

money.

When we costed it out and looked at it, assuming that you saved $135,000 per organ and you then had that period of time, and if

you are talking about just kidneys, alone, we figured it was about

$236 million. But then if you looked at kidneys, if you looked at

hearts, if you looked at deceased donors which could provide, for

example, two kidneys, and a live donor one kidney, if you look at

a deceased donor and you look at the heart, the liver, the pancreas,

the small intestine, and you look at all of that, you can recognize

that by transplantation and donation, when spending money for donation efforts, that you would save the taxpayers, the Government,

millions of dollars just for kidneys, alone, and then billions of dollars if we talk about deceased donors who gave, let’s say, the 3.5

organs per donor that is the goal for the Breakthrough Collaborative.

Mr. CLAY. And not to sound awfully cold, hard stats, so to say,

but our colleagues would want to know what are the costs and effects of a bill like ours.

Dr. Crippin.

Dr. CRIPPIN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to give it a slightly different spin, and it gets back to Ms. Rubin’s comments about

immunosuppression running out after 36 months and patients covered under Medicare. There is a study by Mark Schnetzler, a

health economist at St. Louis University, who found that, in patients who lost their kidney transplant, the cost of maintaining

them on immunosuppression on average was just over $13,000 a

year.

But to lose that transplant and have to go back on dialysis, the cost of the first year back on dialysis was a staggering $130,000.

So by maintaining immunosuppression, again, for the lifetime of

the allograft, at least for kidney patients where you don’t have to

incur the dialysis expense, it is a huge savings to our country.

Mr. CLAY. And is it true that the insurance industry, and I guess

our Government, has this 36 month time limit of coverage?

Dr. CRIPPIN. No, it is not. The private insurers don’t operate that

way. I mean, it is has been explained to me that when this program was started years ago there was only so much money the

Government could expend toward the cost of immunosuppressive

medications. There have been studies looking at what if we paid for

those medicines for the lifetime. Of course, it works into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Dr. CALLENDER. And when you talk about the Medicare payment,

initially it was for 36 months, and after 36 months coverage would

end. I have a number of patients who are now back on dialysis because they couldn’t afford to pay anything after the 36 months.

86

That is the time period at which we are breaking even, so it is a

disastrous situation where you have a situation which they both

talked about, where after a period of time there is no payment for

immunosuppressive medication.

Mr. CLAY. And the policy ought to be changed.

Dr. CALLENDER. Yes.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that.

Ms. Dunn, I would like to spend a little time on the areas of family notification procedures and presumed consent of donors. What

are the procedures for tracking down next of kin in a situation

where the potential donor did not indicate whether a gift was intended? And what role does the OPO community play in determining the accuracy and validity of a deceased donor’s choice?

Ms. DUNN. Thank you. That is an in-depth question certainly,

with many parts to it.

The process that is in place based on conditions and participation

in the Medicare program is that all hospitals in the country are required to do death notifications when someone is near death or

death has occurred, and those phone calls come in to the OPO. At

that case, in the case of brain death the OPO physically sends

someone to the hospital to make a determination on donor suitability from the chart, to huddle with the hospital team—the

nurses and physicians—to determine that brain death has actually

been declared or is imminent, and then at that point to talk with

the family about their options for donation.

If the person is on the registry, it is at that point that we search

the registry to see if they are on it. If they are not on the registry,

then a skilled team of professionals who have been trained in family interactions and bereavement care interact with the next of kin

that has been identified by the hospital. Most of the time someone

is at the hospital or they are reachable by phone. That conversation

then takes place about that death has occurred, what the options

are for donation, and how long the process will take.

That is, in a nutshell, how the process goes. Does that answer

the specifics to your question?

Mr. CLAY. It certainly does. I was just wondering what other

steps could be taken to improve contact with family? I mean, sometimes it is probably perceived as pretty cold when your representative shows up.

Ms. DUNN. You know, it is really a very fine line. You know, it

is crucial that we have a good partnership with the hospital staff,

the nurses and physicians, because they are the ones that have

been with the family since the time of admission through the event

that has led up to the point of brain death. If we don’t have that

relationship with them, it is difficult for us to have a meaningful

conversation with the family about their options.

The fine line that we walk is if we are there too early, quite

frankly, the reputation that a lot of OPO colleagues have is that

we are vultures when we are in the intensive care unit, and we

don’t want to create a conflict of interest by being there too prematurely, so it really is a fine line.

I think the short answer is to continue to develop really strong

relationships with hospital systems so that we are there appropriately talking with the care providers.

87

Mr. CLAY. And according to your testimony, you do a lot as far

as looking for live donors, as well as getting people to declare, I

guess, on the back of their driver’s licenses?

Ms. DUNN. Yes, with registry drives that really is. With 28

States now having active registries that are registries of consent,

all our efforts are to drive people to the registry.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that.

Dr. Pruett, would you please explain for us how UNOS is funded

by its members and the policymaking functions it derives through

its OPTN charter? How much Federal funding does the OPTN receive annually?

Dr. PRUETT. Thank you. The majority of the UNOS budget and

the OPTN budget comes through the registration fees of putting a

person who is waiting for a transplantation on the waiting list.

That constitutes the vast majority of the moneys of the $30 million

budget that is required to run the allocation system in this country.

The amount of money that is coming through Federal funding

was capped in the initial NOTA authorization back in 1984 at $2

million and has never exceeded that degree of dollars, so the burden of the cost of running the OPTN is basically on the patients

and the centers which goes through.

With respect to the policymaking functions, through the charter

and through the final rule, there are a variety of areas. The first

and foremost policy area that we are supposed to have policy about

is equitable organ allocation. The second one is to reduce the risk

of transmission of diseases through transplantation to potential recipients. We are to address the issues of socio-economic disparities

which occur through transplantation and try to minimize those,

and then there are some issues related to policy. The Secretary recently came with the notion that the OPTNs should have policy

pertaining to the performance of live organ donation in this country.

Those are the charger areas that we are to address, and a variety

of functions come up as time goes on which we also do, but those

are the core areas that we are to address.

Mr. CLAY. In general, what are the demographics of individuals

who make organ donations, both living and anatomical donation?

Do they tend to be better educated or economically advantaged?

Dr. PRUETT. The donors or the recipients? I’m sorry.

Mr. CLAY. The donors.

Dr. PRUETT. The people who donate tend to be, in a large part,

like Mr. Walls—educated and motivated to do such. And the people

who are disadvantaged in our society who do not feel much of the

motivation have a hard time sometimes generating the goodness of

their hearts to think that they need to donate back to the system.

It is not that it doesn’t occur, clearly. There are clearly wonderful

people throughout the entire system. It is our job as an organization and as a community of transplantation to embrace the good

values of what we as human beings can do for each other to try

and make that work, but on the whole there are disparities.

Mr. CLAY. And, in general, the initial reaction of family members

when that option is brought to them? What have you witnessed?

Dr. PRUETT. I usually don’t witness much of the donation process. We try, obviously, to separate from the transplant surgeon’s

88

side. But just being a physician in the hospital, I have certainly

seen plenty of folks die, and certainly have seen people who have

been requested, and the people who feel like they have been given

a short shrift in that they have not been treated fairly are oftentimes quite angry at the time of death, and oftentimes the concept

of donation is just not in their parlance.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that.

Dr. Burdick, finally, is there reliable data available on the number of organs that are available to the listed patient population

each year but are never transplanted due to the inability of a

transplant center to confirm a donor’s intent in a timely fashion?

Dr. BURDICK. I am not aware of specific data on that score. I

think that the implication that one can draw from comments you

have already heard, that organ donation has clearly been affected

in a very positive way by State registries which facilitate just the

concern that you have expressed in that question. It is an indirect

way of indicating that system could use more facility, and it shows

the benefit of it when the registry is in place.

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask you to what extent would increasing our

donor pool help close the gap between the number of patients on

the waiting list and the number of transplantable organs that are

recovered? I am assuming that it will never be a perfect one-to-one

ratio.

Dr. BURDICK. We did 26,000 transplants last year, and we can

show that if we were to achieve the national average of the Collaborative goals of 75 percent conversion rate, and rounding off to

four organs per donor, we would move that to just over 35,000.

That is our goal now for our Collaborative for this coming year,

with 97,000 patients on the list.

There are patients who are added, there are patients who die

waiting, as we have talked about, but we can definitely begin to

really turn around deaths on the waiting list and eventually begin

to show an annual decrease in the number of patients waiting for

this life-saving therapy if we can reach that level. So we are 9,000

donors a year away from having that, and it is a doable proposition.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that response.

Representative Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to ask one question and one comment before I ask

it. With regard to the prospect of cultivating the prison population

as possible donors, I do have some knowledge in this area. I know

that there are some Asian countries that are very aggressive, to

put it mildly, very aggressive in cultivating their prison population

for organ donation. Creepy is a good word. But I think it also lends

a stigma that we do not want.

From my own family’s experience, I can say that organ donation,

once it is understood—I remember Dr. Jenkins from the Leahy

Clinic in Massachusetts explaining to me that the liver grows back

after 60 percent of it is cut out for donation, and I kept saying, go

over that part again. I am an attorney and considered myself fairly

educated at that point, but I really honestly believe that education

can do a lot of good in this area.

89

I want to register my vote in opposition to looking at our prison

population. I think that their incarceration and the appearance of

coercion is just inescapable. As a civilized society, we do not want

to go down that road.

As strong a supporter as I am of organ donation, I think we can

do it with well-educated and freely involved. I have the greatest

faith in the goodness of humanity, and I have seen it so many

times. We see it again here with Ms. Rubin and all of you.

I think that is enough said. I don’t think we want to go down

that road.

Second, I was struck by, Ms. Dunn, the difference in the increase

that you saw in the Colorado/Wyoming example was a 40 percent

increase, while the United States generally experienced a 25 percent increase. That is statistically significant, I think, and I wanted

to know if there are any, besides your wonderful work, approach.

What is causing that? What is bringing the results that you see in

terms of greater willingness to donate?

Ms. DUNN. Well, it is really directly attributable to the work of

the Collaborative, and partnering with the donor hospitals as well

as the transplant programs for shared accountability. If you have

a better partnership with the nurse at the bedside and the

intensivist and hospital administration, donation becomes part of

the fabric of the hospital so that it is always in the forefront of

someone’s mind, not in lieu of saving lives, but when all is done,

there is nothing more that can be done, when donation becomes a

question, then families have been treated well by the hospital and

they are more inclined to say yes.

Mr. LYNCH. Well, I would be remiss if I didn’t say thank you to

all of you for your wonderful work and your continuing involvement

in this issue. Certainly, we have a great leader in the chairman.

I am sure that he will stay on this. I will be there to help him.

Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Lynch. We heard you loud

and clear about the prisons.

Let me ask a panel-wide question, and anyone can tackle it as

you see fit. An area where we have identified significant potential

for improving donor/recipient outcomes is in the area of paired and

list donations. We can just start at this end of the table. Can you

describe some of the systems or networks in place that offer paired

or list donation programs? And are these simply demonstration

programs that need more study, or are they being implemented nationally? We will start on this end of the table and move down.

Dr. BURDICK. At present the active systems are mainly programs

that have their own local activity. There are one or two other regional, I think you would say, systems that involve multiple centers, and I don’t have really a lot of specific information about this.

There has been some very excellent statistical work done to determine to what level the existence of a national system for paired

donation in settings in which it is not possible for a given donor

to provide an organ to a given, chosen recipient, but rather could

to some other in an exchange way. This could be extended to

produce the possibility of hundreds more transplants per year.

This system is mathematically quite clear. It has not yet been

put into practice, but the activity of the OPTN in this area has only

90

recently begun to be directed toward these things because of the

issues that have been barring Federal activity as a contractor of

HRSA. Now that we are in a position to be able to give the green

light to working on that system, the process is going to be worked

on and explored, and we think it is very promising.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Dr. Pruett.

Dr. PRUETT. Yes. It is an area that we are very enthused about.

It is a potential. I don’t even know the number of people who would

like to donate who can’t because of blood groups or sensitization or

whatever reasons.

The major concern for us on the OPTN side and the UNOS side

is to keep our enthusiasm inside of the notion of patient safety in

that we want to make sure that whatever systems that we embark

on is that we are setting up a system that is safe for the people

who do it, that the organs go to the intended way that they want

it to be done, that they are fully informed, and that, in fact, we can

do this in the best possible way that we can.

So we are sort of on both sides. We recognize the tremendous potential and are tremendously enthused about that potential, and at

the other side, we are on the cautious side as to say, as Dr. Burdick

said, we are just now getting into a large part of this business because of change in both perspective and law, and from the oversight side we are now just starting to get into the oversight of life

organ donation as part of our mission, so that we are still working

through our processes to set our priorities for patient safety and

equitable allocation.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Ms. Dunn.

Ms. DUNN. Certainly there are a handful of OPOs that are involved in coordinating the live donation or the paired exchange program. I would say there are probably some differences of philosophy within OPOs that if we really turn our attention to facilitating

paired exchange programs that it takes our eye off the increase in

deceased donor donations, so that is where we sit.

Mr. CLAY. I see. Thank you.

Anything to add?

[No response.]

Mr. CLAY. OK. Let me ask another panel-wide question. I would

like to address some of the issues regarding living donation. We

can begin with Dr. Burdick and proceed from there. When screening living donors, are there standards established by stakeholders

for the medical and mental screening of potential donors? And are

there adequate counseling or information services provided to potential living donors?

Dr. BURDICK. As Dr. Pruett mentioned, this has recently been

put into the expectations for our contractor, to have criteria for

membership, for appropriateness of a program to be able to do living donation, and the criteria for consent. In fact, these have recently been established as policy by the OPTN.

There have been extensive discussions about much of the rest of

what you asked about—that is, how well the counseling is done,

how it is done, and, in fact, this is also an element in the regulations for transplant programs now put out by CMS.

91

The level of detail that one needs to get to in terms of medical

practice, which is not exactly what HRSA oversees, is something

that is under very careful discussion by the community now, and

there will be further actual specific policy from HRSA’s contractor,

the OPTN, on this topic shortly, I think.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Dr. Pruett.

Dr. PRUETT. I would just reiterate that there are a number of different guidelines and recommendations which have been put out by

international transplant societies about what constitutes the kind

of workup which needs to be done. It is in our literature. What we

are trying to do in terms of the OPTN is set some resource documents for our members that they can both have for making sure

that they are complete in the way they do things, but, more importantly for the people who are entering into live donation, to understand what the purpose of what we are to do in this endeavor.

What we really want is to make sure it is as safe as it can be

done, that people can have the optimal amount of information that

they need to make a good decision, and then to make that decision.

It may be not to donate. It may be to donate. But we want to make

sure that they have the information that they can use to come up

with a good decision.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Ms. Dunn, any thoughts? Doctors. Ms. Rubin.

[No response.]

Mr. CLAY. OK. I will allow anyone who wants to make a closing

statement, a brief one, you can have at it.

[No response.]

Mr. CLAY. I see we have no takers. I will conclude by saying

thank you to this panel, as well as Mr. Walls. We think this will

be the first in a series of hearings on this subject. I think that any

national discuss on health care should include organ and tissue donation, as well as how we make the process more efficient.

I want to thank you all again for being here, and that concludes

this hearing. Hearing adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ