Technical corrections only. The diff reflects the bill's procedural movement from the House to the Senate, updating the header and adding the Clerk's name. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2025
Bottom line
The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act aims to prevent discrimination based on disability in organ transplant eligibility and related services by requiring accommodations and considering support networks.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits covered healthcare entities and the national organ transplant board from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in organ transplant decisions. It mandates reasonable modifications to policies and practices, including considering support networks, and clarifies that inability to independently comply with health requirements is not medically significant if a support network exists. It also establishes an expedited resolution process for complaints at the Office for Civil Rights of HHS.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that individuals with disabilities are often unfairly denied life-saving organ transplants based on misconceptions about their ability to manage post-transplant care. This bill, they contend, ensures that medical decisions are based on individualized assessments and actual medical suitability, not discriminatory stereotypes, by recognizing the crucial role of support networks and requiring reasonable accommodations.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might express concerns that the bill could potentially complicate medical decision-making by introducing non-medical factors or increase administrative burdens on healthcare providers. Some might argue that medical professionals should retain full autonomy in assessing a patient's suitability without additional legal constraints, fearing it could lead to medically inappropriate transplants or increased costs for hospitals.
The bill is relatively short and clearly written, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short name of the Act as the "Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act." This name honors an individual and clearly states the bill's purpose.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that naming the bill after Charlotte Woodward provides a human face to the issue of organ transplant discrimination and highlights the personal impact of such policies, galvanizing support for the legislation.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is largely symbolic and does not alter the substantive provisions.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the short title itself.
Section 3
Prohibition of Discriminatory Policy by Transplant Board
This section prohibits the board of directors responsible for the national organ transplant system from issuing policies, recommendations, or memoranda that would hinder a qualified individual's access to an organ transplant solely due to their disability. This targets systemic discrimination at the policy-making level.
Section 4(a)
General Prohibition of Discrimination by Covered Entities
This provision broadly prohibits "covered entities" (including hospitals, health care practitioners, and transplant hospitals) from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities. Specifically, they cannot deem an individual ineligible, deny an organ transplant or related services, refuse referrals, or refuse to place an individual on a waiting list solely based on disability.
Section 4(b)
Exception for Medically Significant Disabilities and Clarification on Support Networks
This section allows covered entities to consider a disability if a physician, following an individualized evaluation, finds it "medically significant" to the organ transplant or related services. However, it clarifies that an individual's inability to independently comply with health requirements cannot be considered medically significant if they have a sufficient support network to ensure compliance.
Section 4(c)
Requirement for Reasonable Modifications
Covered entities are required to make "reasonable modifications to policies or practices" to make organ transplants or related services available to qualified individuals with disabilities. This requirement is waived only if the entity can demonstrate that such modifications would "fundamentally alter the nature" of those policies or practices.
Section 4(e)
Enforcement Mechanisms
This section allows individuals alleging a violation of the Act to bring a claim to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for expedited resolution. It also clarifies that this does not limit or replace existing remedies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or other applicable laws.
Defines "qualified individual" as someone who, "with or without a support network, provision of auxiliary aids and services, or reasonable modifications to policies or practices," meets eligibility requirements for the receipt of a human organ.
Section 2(6)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms at the outset, but the implications of this specific definition are central to the bill's intent.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition is foundational to the bill's anti-discrimination purpose, explicitly mandating that the presence of a support network or the need for accommodations does not disqualify an individual. It ensures a holistic, rather than an independent-only, assessment of eligibility.
Case against: Some might argue that this definition could be interpreted too broadly, potentially requiring medical providers to consider individuals for transplants who, even with support, may not have a reasonable chance of successful post-transplant outcomes, thus potentially impacting organ allocation efficiency or success rates.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the pool of individuals who must be considered "qualified" for organ transplants, potentially increasing access for many with disabilities.
Defines "reasonable modifications to policies or practices" to include communication with support persons, consideration of support networks (family, friends, home/community-based services) for post-surgical compliance, and the use of supported decision-making.
Section 2(7)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for defining terms, but the specific examples provided are highly operative.
Case for: Proponents argue these specific examples are critical for operationalizing the "reasonable modifications" requirement, providing clear guidance to healthcare providers on how to accommodate individuals with disabilities and integrate their support systems into care planning.
Case against: Healthcare providers might express concern that these detailed requirements could be prescriptive and burdensome, potentially requiring significant changes to established protocols and increasing administrative overhead.
Estimated impact: Provides concrete mechanisms for implementing accommodations, directly influencing how transplant centers interact with individuals with disabilities and their support systems.
States that a covered entity shall take steps to ensure a qualified individual is not denied a procedure associated with the receipt of an organ transplant or related services, because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the covered entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the procedure being offered or would result in an undue burden on the entity.
Section 4(d)(1)
Why it matters:Often, clarifications are placed later in sections, but this specific point is crucial for ensuring practical accessibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is vital for ensuring practical access, as the lack of auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpreters, accessible information formats) can be as discriminatory as outright denial. It reinforces the active duty to accommodate.
Case against: Healthcare providers might raise concerns about the cost and logistical challenges of providing all necessary auxiliary aids and services, particularly for rare or specialized needs, and the interpretation of "undue burden."
Estimated impact: Requires healthcare providers to proactively ensure accessibility through auxiliary aids, potentially increasing operational costs but significantly improving access for individuals with communication or sensory disabilities.