The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act prohibits covered entities from denying a transplant or related services solely because of a disability. It defines key terms (disability, organ, qualified individual) and requires reasonable modifications to policies or practices to improve access, including support for decision-making and communication.
The bill also allows medically significant disabilities to be considered in transplant decisions only when a physician determines it is medically relevant, and it directs enforcement through the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. This act aligns transplant access with broader disability rights without upending existing law.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits discrimination in eligibility, referral, waiting-list placement, or related services on the basis of disability. Requires reasonable modifications to policies and procedures to enable access, and supports decision-making for patients with disabilities.
Who It Affects
Licensed health care providers, transplant hospitals, and other covered entities engaged in organ evaluation, listing, transplantation, or post-transplant care; and qualified individuals with disabilities pursuing an organ transplant.
Why It Matters
Establishes enforceable protections to ensure disability-related access across the transplant process, signaling alignment with ADA-era rights and reducing inequities in life-critical medical decisions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a comprehensive anti-discrimination framework for organ transplantation. It defines the terms used in the act—such as what counts as a disability, what constitutes a human organ, and who a qualified recipient is—and ties those definitions to current disability law.
The core prohibition bars a covered entity from denying or delaying an organ transplant or related services solely because of a disability, and it also bars refusals to refer a patient or to place them on a waiting list on that basis.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits denial of organ transplant or related services solely due to disability by any covered entity.
A physician may consider a disability if it is medically significant to transplant receipt, but only to the extent supported by individual evaluation.
Covered entities must provide reasonable modifications to policies or practices to enable access, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the program.
Enforcement is available through the HHS Office for Civil Rights, with a pathway for expedited resolution where appropriate.
The rules apply to evaluation, listing, transplantation, and post-transplant care, as well as related services.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act. It creates the formal name used in all references and enacting materials.
Definitions and key terms
The section defines auxiliary aids and services, covered entities, disability, human organ, organ transplant, qualified individual, reasonable modifications to policies or practices, related services, supported decision-making, and the term 'support network.' These definitions tie transplant access to established disability-law concepts and set the boundaries for what the act regulates.
Prohibition of discriminatory policy
This provision prevents the board of directors described in the Public Health Service Act from issuing policies or memoranda that would prohibit or hinder a qualified individual’s access to an organ transplant solely on the basis of disability. It ensures that policy guidance cannot preempt equal access.
Prohibition of discrimination
Subsection (a) bars covered entities from determining ineligibility, denying transplantation or related services, failing to refer to transplant centers, or refusing to place on a waiting list for a disabled individual. Subsection (b) creates limited exceptions for medically significant disabilities, allowing disability to inform care decisions only when clinically warranted, and clarifies that such considerations cannot mandate inappropriate care.
Application to each part of process
The provisions apply across the transplant process: evaluation, listing, the transplant itself, and post-transplant treatment, as well as related services. This ensures a cohesive protection throughout the patient journey rather than a piecemeal approach.
Effect on other laws
The act does not supersede higher rights established by state or local law. It clarifies that federal disability protections complement but do not replace existing laws governing organ transplants.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Qualified individuals with disabilities seeking an organ transplant gain nondiscriminatory access to evaluation, listing, and transplantation.
- Hospitals, transplant centers, and clinicians that implement accessible policies benefit from clear, enforceable standards and reduced litigation risk.
- Disability advocacy groups gain concrete mechanisms to promote equitable access within the transplant system and to challenge discriminatory practices.
- Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and related providers face consistent guidelines for accessibility and decision-making support.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered entities—hospitals, transplant centers, and health professionals—must invest in modifications, staff training, and accessibility resources.
- Health plans and insurers may bear higher administrative costs to ensure coverage aligns with nondiscrimination requirements for transplantation and related services.
- State and local health systems may incur costs implementing training, accessibility upgrades, and compliance monitoring.
- The federal government, through OCR, may incur costs related to enforcement and expedited resolution processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is ensuring equal access for disabled patients without undermining clinical appropriateness or imposing unsustainable burdens on providers. The act must calibrate when disability considerations become medically significant versus when they would compromise patient safety or resource constraints.
The act strikes a balance between nondiscrimination and clinical judgment by allowing medical significance to influence decisions only when supported by individualized evaluation. It requires reasonable modifications to policies and the provision of auxiliary aids and services, but it also permits exceptions where such changes would fundamentally alter the program or impose an undue burden.
A key ambiguity is how to operationalize 'medically significant' disabilities in diverse clinical contexts and how to measure what constitutes a fundamental alteration. Additionally, although enforcement channels are specified, the practical workflow for complaints across varied health systems could vary, potentially creating uneven implementation timelines across providers and regions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.