Dispute Over Data Use Threatens Lifesaving Organ Transplants in the U.S.
The United States transplant system, already plagued with numerous challenges, is facing yet another potential blow. The flow of lifesaving organs to 63 U.S. transplant centers could be disrupted by a dispute over the use of data as early as Wednesday. The nonprofit organization, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), which oversees the system, has threatened to revoke access to the complex computer network for Buckeye Transplant Services, an organ-screening company. UNOS has set a deadline for Buckeye to comply with its demands regarding the use of transplant data.
If a deal is not reached, the 63 transplant centers that depend on Buckeye to evaluate the size, condition, and compatibility of organs for patients would find themselves without its services. This interruption could have severe consequences for critically ill patients waiting for hearts, livers, and lungs. Jared Ackley, the president of Buckeye, warns that “people would likely die” as transplant centers would struggle to manage the sudden loss of Buckeye’s services.
The dispute revolves around UNOS’s claim that Buckeye’s automated tool retrieves data from UNOS computers that the company is not entitled to access. UNOS argues that once this happens, they cannot ensure the security and appropriate use of the information. Buckeye, on the other hand, argues that it has done nothing wrong and that other organizations in the transplant system engage in similar practices.
In response to the threat of access revocation, Buckeye has filed a lawsuit against UNOS in federal court in Virginia, seeking an injunction to prevent UNOS from cutting off its access to the computer network that coordinates the movement of transplant organs. Buckeye alleges that UNOS and Buckeye are competitors, offering transplant centers the same data, and that UNOS’s actions have already resulted in financial losses for the company.
The looming deadline has raised concerns about the potential impact on patients at transplant hospitals such as Stanford, Duke, and the University of California at San Francisco. Hospitals would need to take over the 24-hour task of organ screening, arranging urgent flights, and setting up operating rooms or find an alternative company to perform these services.
While UNOS’s general counsel acknowledges the strain this could put on hospital staff and the possibility of delays, he emphasizes that cutting off Buckeye is a last resort in an ongoing negotiation. He stated, “We certainly hope not, but I can’t make any guarantees.”
The federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which oversees the transplant network, has stated that the dispute is between UNOS and Buckeye. However, federal officials have been involved in the discussions. They have promised to hold UNOS accountable for its contractual obligations if disruptions to transplant surgeries occur.
This latest dispute occurs within the larger context of efforts to overhaul the U.S. transplant system. In March, the Health Resources and Services Administration announced plans to break up UNOS’s 37-year monopoly as the network operator. The system has long faced criticism for inadequacies, including high numbers of people on waiting lists for organs and organ wastage.
Buckeye, optimistic about its future, has expressed interest in bidding for a part of the contract that UNOS holds if it can meet the necessary technological requirements. The company believes that UNOS aims to suppress the development of alternate technology that could potentially replace its system.
As technology has improved and transplant centers have expanded their search for organs, the number of organ offers has increased, placing more significant burdens on screening services. Buckeye, the largest organ-screening company in the United States, has nearly 180 employees nationwide and evaluated 280,000 organ offers in 2022. It was involved in 5,900 organ transplants during the same period.
The disagreement between UNOS and Buckeye highlights the challenges faced by the transplant system and the critical role played by organ-screening companies. The resolution of this dispute will determine the fate of thousands of patients waiting for lifesaving organ transplants.