I'm with Audry,
I think most of us who have donated would probably agree that we were not looking for anything other than to make a difference in someone's life but; I don't think any of us would think it is right that an organ donor should come out of this process 1) at an economic loss or deficit 2) Having to pay out of their own pocket or own insurance, any related expenses 3) That we don't have adequate and long-term medical follow-up and after-care 4) that someday down the road, we as donors may present with collateral issues, relative to our donation, that will ultimately need to be addressed medically and billed to our own insurance and where we most probably will have related out-of-pocket deductibles and such.
After my surgery, my wife was my primary care-giver and missed enough work that equated to a couple of thousand dollars in lost pay for unpaid time off. Minnesota has statutory provision for a tax credit of up to $10,000.00 to cover such costs, but apparently it only applies directly to the donor, not your wife/husband - what sense does this make.
Speaking with individuals who may be considering living donation, it's obvious that one of their main concerns (other than long-term impact to their health post-op) is economics. Not what they stand to gain, but what do they stand to lose. That's not right.
Listen, our United States Congressman and Senators receive cadillac health care for life for serving a single-term in congress - is there a disparity there?
Ultimately, I'm not necessarily for outright payment for organs as I see too many collateral issues that would arise, but I am for making it easier and more assuring for potential donors to make the decision by offering life-time health care with no deductibles, co-pays or RX costs, that is accepted everywhere/anywhere the patient/donor wants to go and it should be FAMILY coverage also as their decision and any impact affects both the donor and their immediate family.
Scott