Posted on 05/28/2024 10:56:45 AM PDT by Red Badger
HHS proposal would push hospitals to prioritize low-income patients in bid to address 'racial inequities'
The Biden administration unveiled a plan that would push American hospitals to prioritize low-income patients when performing kidney transplants, a move Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra says is aimed at rooting out "racial inequities" in the "transplant process."
The proposal, which Becerra's agency announced on May 8, would place 90 of the nation's 257 transplant hospitals into a pilot program that uses an annual point system to grade participants. Under the system, a successful kidney transplant counts as one point. A transplant furnished to a low-income patient, however, counts as 1.2 points thanks to a "health equity performance adjustment," thus incentivizing the hospitals to prioritize such patients.
At the end of each year, those points are applied to a transplant quota. Hospitals that meet their quota receive as much as $8,000 per transplant; those that don't may have to pay up to $2,000 per transplant.
While the proposal uses income to categorize patients rather than race, Becerra made clear that the scoring system is meant to address racial concerns. In his statement announcing the proposal, he touted the Biden administration's "concrete steps to remove racial bias … in the transplant process."
"The organ transplant industry, like every other part of society, is not immune to racial inequities," he said. "Black Americans disproportionately struggle with life-threatening kidney disease, yet they receive a smaller percentage of kidney transplants. The Biden-Harris administration is taking concrete steps to remove racial bias when calculating wait times and rooting out profiteering and inequity in the transplant process."
The proposal reflects the Biden administration's fixation on "equity." Shortly after taking office, in January 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order outlining an "ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda" in which federal agencies "must recognize and work to redress inequities in their policies and programs."
The Department of Health and Human Services kidney transplant proposal cites that executive order directly. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
For Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a kidney specialist who served as University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine associate dean, the Biden administration's proposal attempts to sidestep the legal thorniness that would accompany making race an explicit factor in kidney transplants—while still achieving the same effect.
"They probably don't want to say ‘we're doing this for black patients,’ because they know they're going to get into trouble with it," said Goldfarb, the founder of the anti-woke medical group Do No Harm and father of Washington Free Beacon chairman Michael Goldfarb.
"So these are ways around it to do what they're trying to accomplish."
Under the proposed model, which Becerra's agency released through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, hospitals are given an annual score determined by three factors: number of transplants, organ acceptance rates, and post-transplant outcomes.
The majority of a participating hospital’s score—60 out of 100 possible points—comes down to the number of transplants performed in comparison to a government-determined "transplant target," with low-income patients weighted an extra 20 percent.
"Each kidney transplant that is furnished to a patient who meets the low-income definition would be multiplied by 1.2, thus counting that transplant as 1.2 instead of 1," the proposal says. "The resulting count of the overall number of kidney transplants performed during the PY [performance year], after the health equity performance adjustment is applied, would then be compared to the transplant target."
Hospitals that meet or exceed the transplant target receive 60 points—the same number required to receive an up to $8,000-per-transplant kickback from the federal government. Those that don't can be penalized. Starting in year two of the program, hospitals that score a 40 or below are fined up to $2,000 per transplant. Hospitals that score between 41 and 59 points neither receive nor owe money.
The proposal defines low-income patients as those who are "in one or more of the following groups: The uninsured, Medicaid beneficiaries, Medicare-Medicaid dually eligible beneficiaries, Recipients of the Medicare LIS, [and] Recipients of reimbursements from the Living Organ Donation Reimbursement." The Biden administration considered making "rural" a low-income qualification but opted not to do so, according to the proposal.
The proposal also concedes a potential "concern" regarding the program: that it "may incentivize shifting of kidney transplants from one type of patient to another." The proposal nonetheless dismisses that concern, saying the "health equity performance adjustment" is meant to "promote improvement activities that would increase access to all patients while recognizing that low-income patients may face more barriers to care."
Ninety of the nation’s 257 transplant hospitals will be forced into the program should it be finalized. The program could begin as early as January 2025, according to Becerra's announcement.
For Goldfarb, the incentive structure at the core of the Biden administration's proposed equity initiative is misguided. He cited research showing that relatives of black patients are less likely to donate a kidney—often due to issues that are unrelated to finances, such as preexisting conditions. Medicare, meanwhile, covers the final stage of kidney failure for Americans of any age.
"I'm quite in favor of outreach to patients who have trouble accessing the health care system," Goldfarb told the Free Beacon. "I'm just not sure this is the case with kidney transplants. I think it's much more a case of patient unwillingness to pursue this and families' unwillingness to donate kidneys."
"And so I think what they've just decided is, 'We'll just give an incentive to the hospitals to do this and let them figure out how to do this,'" he continued. "But I don't know that there's a real system in place to allow that. So either you're going to have a system that ends up being purely on the basis of race, or it's going to be a system that fails totally."
Other medical institutions’ "health equity" initiatives have landed them in hot water.
At the University of California, Los Angeles medical school, a mandatory "health equity" class taught future doctors that weight loss is a "hopeless endeavor" and featured a guest speaker who led students in chants of "Free, Free Palestine" and demanded they bow to "mama earth," the Free Beacon reported. UCLA launched a probe into the class last month.
The criminally insane have taken control.
Attempting to “equalize” outcomes is the goal of the Left and the ultimate in bad government mandates.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill
“Diversity” just means fewer white people. This is one method.
Then I see a lotof people will not help anyone, then, if it’s not based on allowing people only on welfare to get them.
The problem with transplants is that a microscopic tissue match is essential for a successful long term transplant.I’m no expert on such things but it seems distinctly possible that transplanting a white person’s kidney into a black person might be problematic.
Insane Clown Posse?
This is a partial consequence of destroying the black family with the welfare system.
those in charge should be charged with premeditated murder as a “hate crime” for forcing doctors to let people die based on racist criteria
Yes...how many matches will be found?
I once knew a guy who had a kidney transplant from a black person. He was not supposed to drink alcohol but he did anyway. I don’t think he was respectful to the donor, black or white. He is no longer with us.
This is extremely unfair.
regardless of color you have to qualify to get on “ The List” do these people understand that finding a match can be difficult. Then there are those who expire while waiting because a match cannot be found.
whats more is when a match is found there are 4 things to consider- #1 : TIME
#2: Has the organ been already been harvested on site for the surgeon to come & pick it up #3 : the donor is live and a match or #4 : the donor expired in house and the kidney/ liver must be removed quickly.
Theres a lot of factors in this and to order The List to be woke is truly insane.
To some this may sound gruesome but its a fact- those needing a kidney/livertransplant look forward to the holidays- because of car accidents where a viable could be available
Call me grossly misinformed but shouldn’t those with the most need because they are more in danger of imminent death be at the top of the list for finding a match/ kidney? Wouldn’t that be true equity?
I don’t know the stats but is it more difficult to find suitable donors in some groups? If so maybe the focus should be on changing that. I know the whole subject of incentives for organ donation is verboten but maybe it should be revisited at least when it does not involve getting an organ from a dead person.
Atlas shrugged
Atlas didn’t need a new kidney.................
Refuse to be a donor unless it’s for a family member who’s compatible.
Your move, Deep State.
Here’s a question...
Why does Deep State suddenly have its shorts in a knot about kidney transplants...
Don’t suppose the need for them has skyrocketed or anything over, say, the past three years...? 🤔
No kidney for you, Whitey.
First, do no harm.
Unless it’s a white guy, then knock yourself out................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.