Harvard business professor: Time to pay funeral expenses of organ donors

April 14, 2026/Business, Regulations/

According to this recent article authored by Alex Chan of the Harvard Business School and Kurt Sweat of The School of Public Health at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center “In the U.S., every 90 minutes a patient awaiting an organ transplant dies, while over 100,000 patients continue costly treatments such as dialysis, burdening Medicare with expenditures exceeding $30 billion annually”.

That is one reason that is given and along with this article, authored by Avery Forman, from the Harvard Business School titled “Designing incentives that matter — even after Death”, on why it might be time to consider payment of funeral expenses by the government for organ donation. The theory here, as wirtten in Forman’s article is as such, “ . . .ethically constrained forms of compensation—like funeral expense reimbursement—can increase donation without commodifying organs. The data suggest that modest, well-bounded incentives can have large effects, but only if they are designed with political and ethical legitimacy in mind.”

According to the article authored by Chan and Sweat, “The United States Renal Data System reports annual hemodialysis costs of roughly $100,000 per patient. As a result, even a modest 5%–10% increase in the organ donation consent rate would lower US spending on dialysis alone by $200–800 million. . . . There is an estimated one million dollars in cost-savings per kidney transplant over a recipient’s lifetime.”

Why tie the incentive to funeral expenses? — Here’s the answer given to that question in the Chan/Sweat article:

“This approach seeks to honor the donor’s gift, not to create a transactional requirement that could add stress to grieving families. By capping reimbursement to reflect median funeral costs ($6000–$8000), policymakers can mitigate concerns about undue inducement or coercion, preserving human dignity and familial autonomy in donation decisions. This clearly distinguishes funeral reimbursement from outright financial compensation for organs, thereby preserving dignity and protecting families from undue financial pressures at a vulnerable time.”

Author Forman, in his article, tells us that there are already precedents for the government paying funeral costs for those who help society in some ways such as, “[For instance], we would pay for the funeral of someone who gives their life for their country when they serve in the military. We will pay for the funeral of someone who donated their body for scientific research to advance society. . . . . People worry that incentives will corrupt the gift of life. But the truth is that we already have incentives; they’re just accidental and poorly distributed.”

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

Funeral Director Daily take: This is where I am glad that I just write and report on the differing sides of some issues and am not the one that has to make the decision on an outcome or path forward. I do, however believe that discussion on issues like this are very important. As Forman states in his article, “. . . this is a market where the stakes are brutally clear. Organ transplantation is one of the few places where inefficiency shows up not as a deadweight loss in a textbook, but as people dying on a waiting list. When a market fails here, it fails loudly.”

It’s also clear to me that funeral directors and those in the Death Care profession will not be the ones who make these types of decisions. However, since your funeral home revenues may be affected, due to possible limited pay of funeral expenses – think of the $255 Social Security benefit here — it’s important to be involved in a decision on any type of “fixed payment” that might come a funeral home’s way if a policy like this is ever adopted.

Fascinating articles — on something that I had never thought of. I think you would enjoy reading the linked articles in this article.

More news from the world of Death Care: