Summary
Currently, different circumstances are overwhelming and causing a scarcity of healthcare resources. For example, the rising numbers of ill people, multimorbidity, comorbidity rates, health literacy, promotion, as well as high prevalence of chronic, acute, and lifestyle diseases are increasing the demand for body organs and medical technologies (Edelman & Kudzma, 2021; Buja et al., 2018). Further, the varying affordability, cost, access, and affordability of healthcare services and equipment also imbalance the demand and supply of healthcare and medical equipment (Vujicic et al., 2016). It creates the necessity of healthcare rationing for organ and equipment transplants that are controversial from stakeholders’ perspectives. Concerning this, I would recommend the assessment of medical urgency and evaluation of survival chances of patients as the two criteria for determining who qualifies for organ and medical equipment transplants in the current healthcare system.
Criteria 1: Examining Medical Urgency of Patients
Assessing the medical urgency should be the best criterion that guides patients that get organs or new medical equipment. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) (2022) report indicates that medical emergencies vary among patients needing organ transplants or medical equipment. Patients in acute, chronic, and emergency departments (ED) always have more medical emergencies than those in other care units. Therefore, providers and payers should prioritize donating or allocating medical equipment to patients with more medical emergencies than those with fewer healthcare necessities. This will help reduce hospital length of stay, readmission, and mortality rates among patients with serious medical emergencies. The approach will also enhance patient well-being and safety because of their previously deteriorating health conditions.
Criteria 2: Examining Survival Benefits and Chances of Patients
Examining the survival benefits is also an appropriate method to control patients that access medical technologies or organs. UNOS (2022) confirms that the control of access and transplant of organs and medical equipment vary based on the availability of resources. For instance, the checklist of qualifications and criteria for organ transplants is longer for organs or equipment readily available and highly supplied in the market. For example, UNOS (2022) demonstrates that the availability of lungs and kidneys make providers use few qualifications to allow transplant. On the other hand, the qualifications for scarce organs and equipment are few. These include the heart and lungs, which are among the scarcely supplied and available organs in the market (UNOS, 2022). Thus, the criteria require providers to increase equipment or organ access to patients who need organs to increase their survivorship and reduce their risk of dying. Similarly, the mechanism requires providers to increase organ or equipment access to patients with higher chances of surviving than those with more risks of dying.
Values that Harmonize with Survival Benefits and Medical Emergency Criteria for Controlling Organ and Equipment Access
The human value of justice directly correlates with the criteria of examining patients’ survival benefits and medical emergencies before permitting organ transplants. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), and Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) (2015) report that every organ transplant should deliver justice to qualified patients in healthcare facilities. In this case, transplanting equipment and organ to patients with higher survival chances and more medical emergencies delivers justice to critically ill patients. This means it would be unfair to deny critically ill patients in ED or chronic care and allow the transplant for clients with manageable conditions. Similarly, it would be unfair to deny patients with higher surviving chances of organs and give those with higher risks of dying. Therefore, the two mechanisms allow critically ill patients with more survival chances to equally enjoy the right to healthy living with those with minor health issues.
Examining patients’ medical necessities and emergencies is ethical and appropriate when deciding who qualifies for organ and equipment transplants. Similarly, assessing the survival chances of patients is also key in determining patients that qualify for transplants. These methods correlate with my human value of justice, which governs providers and payers of healthcare services when regulating the access and demand of medical equipment, technologies, and organs.
References
Buja, A., Claus, M., Perin, L., Rivera, M., Corti, M. C., Avossa, F.,… & Boccuzzo, G. (2018). Multimorbidity patterns in high-need, high-cost elderly patients. PloS one, 13(12), e0208875.
Edelman, C. L., & Kudzma, E. C. (2021). Health Promotion Throughout the Life Span-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)., U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)., & Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). (2015). Ethical Principles in the Allocation of Human Organs. Web.
United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). (2022). How We Match Organs. How Does UNOS Save Lives? Web.
Vujicic, M., Buchmueller, T., & Klein, R. (2016). Dental care presents the highest level of financial barriers, compared to other types of health care services. Health Affairs, 35(12), 2176-2182.