Anyway, I didnt mean to get

I don't think it's off-topic, just a tangent of the original.

Yeah and they have made advances on the drugs, thats true. Overall they are still problematic though. They actually were using bone marrow from the donor and giving that to the recipient to try to keep the body from attacking the new organ. I think that was somewhat successful.

Depends. Overall, though, it's not particularly successful for most diseases. What they do is radiate and clean your own marrow, then put it back. Problem is, for the kind of leukimia I have anyway, the genetic marker is still there which means that the disease could (and probably will) reactivate. And the process in your body is harsh as hell, most people don't survive the preparation, much less the aftermath. The survival rate on a bone marrow transplant for adults is usually between 30 and 40%, higher for children.

Medicare pays for the anti rejection drugs for two years after the transplant. After that you're on you own

AND having a pre-existing condition makes you next to impossible to get insurance to cover the meds. Although some states are starting to offer "high risk" insurance, it is REALLY expensive

There is some action in Congress to change the Medicare thing but really and truly they don't care. Kidney patients aren't a big enough votong bloc and no Congressman does anything out of the kindness of his heart

same here

Thats why I feel we need to make a concerted effort to move towards the stem cell research. Its time.

How awful for Medicare to be like that. They cover the surgery and then the drugs for only two years?! That doesn't even make sense. Grrrr.....

well, they expect that after two years the person will go back to work and have employers insurance.

Except, if you have a transplant, insurance is next to impossible to get

Less and less companies have employers insurance these days.

Not to mention that after a transplant is performed, you need to stay on immune suppression therapy for the LIFETIME of the transplanted organ. You can get the drugs however even if your coverage expires. Generally an organ is not going to be wasted.

That's brilliant! We should try to get this passed over here in the US. ^_^

am i correct when i say that medicare WILL, however, cover the cost of going back on dialysis if the kidney is rejected?

i fail to see any logic (or financial benefit) if this is the case.

Yes, this is an interesting aspect that I did not know. My dad mentioned it yesterday when I asked him about organ recipients and post-surgery quality of life.

He said that these immune-suppression drugs suppress the entire immune system, making the patient more susceptible to disease and cancer over all. He did not mention that these drugs actually destroy the function of the transplanted organ, but I'll ask him about it (he's a GP in case anyone's wondering).

Of course, they would try to keep the doses of these meds as low as possible so as to suppress the immune system as little as possible.



The government's attitude towards stem cell research has been embarrassing and deplorable until now. I'm sure Obama will work to fix this.

Also, Obama wants to push us closer to universal health care. Hopefully, he'll be able to do at least one or both of these things, and soon, so finally the nightmare will not be so bad.

Stem cell research is promising, of course, but as it is in its infant stages, I seriously doubt it'll be affordable for the majority of patients. Once the the health insurance problem is fixed, though, this may not be an issue. Even so, it's possible that for the first few years after we have the appropriate stem cell technology, insurance companies just won't cover it, irrespective of whether health insurance is universal or not.

Thanks for keeping the topic in mind. Your comments have been great additions to the thread though! If everyone were "off-topic" the way you are, there wouldn't even be an off-topic smiley. ;-)

I know it definitely does with the pancreas because that is a complicated organ that has to supply the hormone insulin to the body. I imagine other organs are effected by these drugs just as well. Im no doctor but many physicians will tell you that the goal needs to be to get away from immune suppression therapy.

Well, maybe my father just doesn't know, but he said that he's never heard of a donated organ deteriorating due to immune suppressing medications.

But, like you said, perhaps the pancreas is a special case. Each organ's function is very different, so who knows? Maybe my father hasn't ever heard of someone who accepted a cadaver's pancreas specifically.

Yes its pancreas specific but all transplanted organs have problems due to the actual immune suppression therapy drugs. The pancreas suffers because it is a more complicated and specific organ as far as its function which is to produce the hormone insulin (from the beta cells). The main problems that occur are graft rejection and malignancies caused by the long term suppression of the immune system. It makes the patient much more vulnerable to certain cancers. As stated, its not a cure. It prolongs life but as long as the transplanted organ is functioning, there is no going off these powerful drugs.

As an example I pulled this off a clinical trial website.

"In order to prevent organ rejection, patients receiving liver transplants currently require life-long treatment with immune system-suppressing medications. However, these medications can cause long-term side effects, such as infection, kidney problems, diabetes, and cancer. This study is investigating whether liver transplant recipients can slowly be taken off these drugs under medical supervision."