Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8307

Bill Overview

Title: Steven’s Law

Description: This bill establishes requirements for collecting and disclosing the medical history of reproductive tissue donors. Through regulations, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must require reproductive tissue banks to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about a donor's medical history. As part of the regulations, HHS must (1) set out the medical information that a donor must disclose to a tissue bank, including familial medical conditions and the contact information of a medical professional who has examined the donor; and (2) require donors to waive privacy and other protections that limit disclosure of personal health information. A tissue bank must provide, at no cost, the donor's medical information to the recipient of the donor tissue, the recipient's physician, or a person conceived using the donor tissue (if that person is either 18 years of age or older or has the consent of a parent or guardian).

Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Chris [R-NY-27]

Target Audience

Population: People involved with reproductive tissue donation and use globally

Estimated Size: 12000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I feel uneasy about waiving my privacy rights, but I understand the need for recipients to have full medical history. It might deter me from continuing as a donor.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 5 7
Year 20 5 7

Reproductive Specialist (Austin, TX)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will help us provide more tailored treatments, although the additional paperwork may complicate our processes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Lawyer (New York, NY)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having donor medical information would have made our journey less anxious. I support the policy but worry about donor consent.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 7

College Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm curious about my donor's medical history and this policy gives me that chance. But I worry about privacy concerns for donors.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Manager in Healthcare Sector (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is necessary to ensure transparency but managing data privacy will be challenging and costly for institutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 6 6

Biotech Researcher (Seattle, WA)

Age: 32 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The quality of donor information might improve research efforts, though might also reduce donor availability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Lab Technician (Columbus, OH)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We need more secure systems to handle sensitive data, which means a lot of investment and training.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Financial Advisor (Miami, FL)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • For those invested in the sector, there might be costs involved, but overall societal benefit is a plus.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 7 7

PhD Candidate (Denver, CO)

Age: 27 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm in favor of full disclosure but concerned about ethical implications if donor pools shrink.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Retired Nurse (Boston, MA)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • From experience, more medical information is helpful, but I feel for donor privacy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)

Year 2: $70000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $95000000)

Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)

Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $105000000)

Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $110000000)

Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $120000000)

Key Considerations