Discussion about this post

User's avatar
forest1's avatar

UNOS has replied to your article by collaborating with the NYT on a hit piece on a transplant surgeon who, to my eyes, was likely getting around issues with their software by either holding slots for currently ineligible patients on the list by setting invalid match criteria, switching patients between ineligible/eligible by setting invalid/valid match criteria, or some other random issue which I can't discern.

People searching for UNOS will now hear from their ethics officer complaining about this particular surgeon's practices and an article implying the surgeon, whose hospital allegedly had a disproportionate (no numbers cited for base rate, not enough numbers cited to calculate a hospital rate) number of deaths on the transplant list, is a killer - as if the best way a transplant surgeon could kill someone is to edit numbers in their own name in a widely accessible national database. They will not hear about the many different exclusion criteria for transplants, nor any of the issues with UNOS that you've identified here.

You're clearly over the target!

Expand full comment
Chasing Oliver's avatar

The fundamental solution here is to allow a market for organs to operate. Rationing always creates such inefficiencies.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts