Look up some of the requirements of donating blood. Incarceration for more than 72 hours will at least temporarily remove someone from the donor pool.
The father was told that in advance & violated his parole.
You don’t understand minimum standards?
Transplant recipients must remain on immune suppressant drugs for the remainder of their natural lives, whether they got the transplant from a known or unknown individual.
Taking immune suppressant drugs reduces their immune capacity, making them more open to infections—including but not limited to COvID-19. Not getting vaccinated when one is already more open to infections and, once on immune suppressant therapy, will be more so, makes zero sense.
Just like blood banks won’t accept donations from those who don’t meet theirs—tested positive for syphilis or gonorrhea in the last year, hemoglobin levels too low, etc.—organ donors and recipients must meet the minimum standards for transplant, or either the donor or recipient is rejected.
That isn’t politics or being inflexible, it’s expecting both parties to meet minimum health standards to maximize the patient’s chances of survival.
2 Likes
Is the insurance company refusing or is the hospital?
2 Likes
Again, I can understand that completely and I agree. But if it’s a friend donor and it’s a case of low odds or no odds, you always take the low odds. Like I said, it’s not like the kidney would be going anywhere else.
As far as your question goes as to whether or not i am performing the operation or follow up tests, my answer would be I couldn’t give a rats ass as long as I’m being paid. Don’t give me this crap about how concerned these doctors are. Bunch of BS.
1 Like
With the Colorado woman, it is the hospital & she is searching for another hospital. IIRC most dialysis patients are Medicare/Medicaid:
The Atlanta child I don’t recall but IIRC it was the transplant team who advised the donor that should he return to jail, he would no longer be eligible to donate to his ailing son, & he violated probation.
I see what you’re saying, I just don’t think it applies in this case. These transplant recipients will be a liability. The longer they live the more money they lose.
That is true. But what do you think costs them more? A transplant patient or a transplant patient who catches Covid?
I’m not sure we can judge that. The more complications are obviously worse, but the fear is in wasting the donor organ is it not? A transplant patient catching covid might very well die. Either way if they survive they’ll probably be taking expensive medication for the rest of their lives.
So it’s just another way for the insurance company to either deny to service and save themselves the money or to minimize the future cost of a ventilator and monoclonal antibodies and long Covid on top of transplant issues.
I’m being cynical but I truly believe every health care issue goes back to how can the insurance folks maximize profit.
Oh I do agree with you there. It’s why they rather charge more for high risk than outright deny coverage. If they could. If they could deny coverage for smokers they wouldn’t. Because the money smokers pay that cost them nothing far outweigh the smokers that cost them extra.
Agreed. And the transplant program always concentrates on outcomes, long term, because they are studied religiously and compared to other programs. You don’t want to be the program with high failure rates because you are vaccinating folks who should be screen failures.
2 Likes
So in Aug it wasn’t required then in Sep it was. What science changed?
2 Likes
They got muscled by the administration or representatives thereof likely.
Lots of folks are turning a blind eye to what is really going on imo.
1 Like
“…the fear is in wasting the donor organ, is it not?”
In a sense yes. Without the vaccination against COVID-19, the odds of placing a kidney into a recipient who, in an immune suppressed state, will catch this virus & readily worsen, increase.
The kidney is being given to a dead man walking, so to speak. Here are the odds of success of kidney transplant, with odds increasing if the donor is biologically related:
https://nephdoc.com/what-is-the-success-rate-of-kidney-transplant/
…”they’ll probably be taking expensive medication for the rest of their lives.”
Correct.
1 Like
No to the bold, I understand the rest. I say no because it’s not going to anyone else. Think of food in the fridge. You have an apple. You can give it to someone that doesn’t really like apples, most likely wasting it, or you can leave it in there until it rots. There are no other alternatives.
1 Like
Well said. 
Whether the donor or the recipient opted out of the COVID-19 vaccination, they made a choice and have themselves to thank for that kidney going to waste.
The odds are better for acceptance when the donor is biologically related, anyway.
Most recent guidelines from AST are from August 13. I posted them. So, nothing changed in September.
Ok, spite.
But these folks are expecting the insurance company to pay for it and lifelong meds, along with expecting the hospital’s transplant program to ignore screening and risk transplant rejection, which will hurt their ability to stay open.
It is not just the apple rotting in the drawer. If these women wanted to fully fund the transplant themselves I might make some sense of it, but I don’t think they are thinking that. And insurance companies are not in the habit of doling out that kind of money on a non-compliant patient.
1 Like
