Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T20:01:20.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policies Regarding Treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States and United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Susan Klein Marine  and
Roberta G. Simmons
Susan Klein Marine
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Roberta G. Simmons
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) represents a victory for medical technology. Dialysis and kidney transplantation, developed in the early 1960s, offer alternative treatments to patients whose own kidneys no longer function; before, these patients faced a terminal diagnosis. Dialysis is a mechanical treatment in which the patient is connected to a machine that cleanses the blood of impurities and returns it to the body. Although recent innovations (e.g., continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis—CAPD) facilitate patient independence from a machine, replacement of the diseased kidneys is the most desirable and least expensive treatment for many patients (33;39). Kidney transplantation remains the most effective and common type of transplantation, and a new kidney (from a living-related or cadaver donor) often dramatically improves the recipient's health and general well-being (20;39). Now, in the mid-1980s, these technologies are no longer new and innovative. Further analysis of these established but costly technologies provides a perspective on the long-range implications of innovations in patient care: while some new issues have emerged, many problems originally associated with these treatments seem to have intensified. Access to treatment remains a central issue, closely linked to the dilemma of equity versus cost. The contrast in the access provided by the United States and Great Britain is dramatic (40); in 1982, the rate of ESRD treatment within the U.S. was twice that of the U.K. (353 versus 160 patients per million) (37). The U.S. policy is basically one of unlimited access, whereas the U.K. has restricted access.

Type
The Cultural Shaping of Biomedical Science and Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 1986 , pp. 253 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Aaron, H. J., & Schwartz, W. B.The painful prescription: Rating hospital care. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1984.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. End-stage renal disease patient profile tables, 1981–2, 1983 and 1984. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, ESRD Systems Branch, Rockville, MD. 1982, 1983, and 1984.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. End-stage stage renal disease network coordinating councils program report, 1983. Los Angeles, The Forum of End-Stage Renal Disease Networks, 1983.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. Public Law 98–507, October 19, 1984.Google Scholar
5. Anonymous. 1984 Congress, 21st Congress of European Dialysis and Transplant Association, European Renal Association. Firenze, Congress Secretariat, 1984.Google Scholar
6. Anonymous. U.K. transplant service annual report 1985. U.K. Transplant Service, Bristol, 1985.Google Scholar
7. Anonymous. Central Lobby: British Kidney Patient Association. The House Magazine, 1985, 13.Google Scholar
8. Anonymous. Standard and Poor's Statistical Service. Basic Statistics, Banking. New York: Standard and Poor's, 1985.Google Scholar
9. Anonymous. Organ donation continues to be issue of concern. The Nation's Health, 1985, October–November, 9.Google Scholar
10. Anonymous. Revised use for hemodialyzers, Contemporary Dialysis. The National Kidney Foundation, 1984, February, 29–37.Google Scholar
11. Anonymous. Medicare annual report, fiscal year 1981. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration.Google Scholar
12.Banta, H. D., & Russel, L. B. Summary and analysis. In Banta, H. D. & Kemp, K. B. (eds.), The management of health care technology in nine countries. New York: Sprin ger, 1982, 193–237.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Callender, C.Educating health professionals and the public, Presentation to the Task Force on Organ Transplantation, November 18–19, 1985.Google Scholar
14.Caplan, A.Ethical and policy issues in the procurement of cadaver organs for transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 981–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Challah, S., Wing, A. J. et al. , Negative selection of patients for dialysis and transplantation in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 1984, 1119–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Council for Science and Society. Expensive medical techniques. London: Calvert's Press, 1982.Google Scholar
17.Eggers, P. W.Trends in Medicare reimbursement for end-stage renal disease: 1974–79. Health Care Financing Review, 1984, 6, 31–38.Google Scholar
18.Eggers, P. W., Connerton, R., & McMullen, M.The Medicare experience with endstage renal disease: Trends in incidence, prevalence and survival. Health Care Financing Review. 1984, 5, 69–88.Google ScholarPubMed
19.European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registration Committee, Combined re port on regular dialysis and transplantation in Europe, XV, 1984.Google Scholar
20.Evans, R. W. & Mennigen, D. L.The quality of life of patients with end stage renal disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 553–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Festenstein, H., Doyle, P., & Holmes, J.Long-term follow-up in London transplant group recipients of cadaver renal allografts: The influence of HLA matching in trans plant outcome. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Flaherty, M. P., & Schneider, A. (Copyright Pittsburgh Press.), (a.) Richest, not sick est, often get help. Rocky Mountain News, November 3, 1985, 3, 37, 40, 41, 42; (b.) Desperation of sick, poor fuels human organ trade. Rocky Mountain News, November 4, 1985, 3, 26, 27; (c.) Marketplace intruding on transplant decisions. Rocky Mountain News, November 5, 1985, 4, 24; (d.) While American patients wait, kidneys are shipped overseas. Rocky Mountain News, November 6, 1985, 2, 36, 37.Google Scholar
23.Fox, R. C.Exclusion from dialysis: A sociological and legal perspective. Kidney In ternational, 1981, 19, 739–51.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Fox, R. C., Swozey, J. P., & Cameron, E. M. Social and ethical problems in the treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease patients. In Narins, G., (ed.) Controversies in Nephrology and Hypertension. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1984, 45–70.Google Scholar
25.Griffiths, R. et al. , NHS management inquiry, (unpublished manuscript). Department of Health and Social Services, London, 1983.Google ScholarPubMed
26.Halper, T.Life and death in a welfare state: End-stage renal disease in the United Kingdom. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1985, 63, 53–93.Google Scholar
27.Ham, C.Health policy in Britain (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 1985.Google Scholar
28.lglehart, J. K.Medical care of the poor-a growing problem. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 313, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.lglehart, J. K.Medicare begins prospective payment of hospitals. New England Jour nal of Medicine, 1983, 308, 1428–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Jones, N. F., Goodwin, F. J., & Roberts, A. P.Manpower and workload in adult renal medicine in the United Kingdom, 1975–1982. British Medical Journal, 1984, 288, 992–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Krakauer, H. Technical report on immunosuppressants in renal transplantation. Office of Research, Health Care Financing Administration. 1985, Unpublished.Google Scholar
32.Kutner, N.Organ transplantation: Evolution of a social problem. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
33.Mancini, P. V.The costs of treating end-stage renal failure. Economic Advisers Office, Department of Health and Social Services, 1984, Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
34.Mulstein, S.The uninsured and the financing of uncompensated care: scope, costs, and policy options. Inquiry, 1984, 21, 214–29.Google ScholarPubMed
35.Neu, S., & Kjellstrand, C. M.Stopping long-term dialysis. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 14–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Prottas, J.Organ procurement in Europe and the United States. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1985, 63, 94–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Rennie, D., Rettig, R. A., & Wing, A. J.Limited resources and the treatment of endstage renal failure in Britain and the U.S. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, New Series 56, 1985, 219, 321–36.Google Scholar
38.Schwartz, W. B., & Aaron, H. J.Rationing hospital care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 52–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Simmons, R. G., Klein, S. D., & Simmons, R. L.The gift of life. New York: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
40.Simmons, R. G., & Marine, S. K.The regulation of high cost technology medicine: The case of dialysis and transplantation in the United Kingdom. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1984, 25, 320–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Simmons, R. G., Abress, L., & Anderson, C. Rehabilitation and ethics in organ transplantation. In Cerilli, J., (ed.). Organ transplantation and replacement. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, in press.Google Scholar
42.Stocking, B. The management of medical technology in the United Kingdom. The management of health care technology in nine countries. In Banta, H. D. and Kemp, K. B. (eds.), The management of health care technology in nine countries. New York: Springer, 1982, 10–27.Google Scholar
43.Sutherland, D. E. R., Strand, M. et al. , Comparison of azathioprine-antilymphicyte globulin versus cyclosporin in transplantation. American Journal of Kidney Disease. 1984, 3, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Task Force on Organ Transplantation. Report to the Secretary and the Congress on immunosuppressive therapies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Organ Transplantation, 1985.Google Scholar
45.Titmuss, R. M.The gift relationship. New York: Pantheon Books, 1971.Google Scholar
46.Ward, E.Death or dialysis—A personal view. British Medical Journal, 1984, 289, 1712–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed