Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act
HB1520, the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act, would prohibit discrimination against individuals with mental or physical disabilities in decisions about organ transplants and related services. The bill defines a “qualified individual” as someone who meets transplant eligibility requirements with or without support networks, auxiliary aids and services, or reasonable modifications to policies and practices. It also defines covered entities broadly to include licensed health care providers, hospitals, transplant hospitals, and certain other facilities involved in transplant-related care.
The bill bars covered entities from denying, delaying, or refusing to refer or list a qualified individual for an organ transplant solely because of disability. It also prohibits policies or guidance that would hinder access to transplantation on that basis. At the same time, the bill preserves individualized medical judgment by allowing disability to be considered only when a physician finds it medically significant to the transplant or related services after an individualized evaluation, and it does not require medically inappropriate procedures. It further requires reasonable modifications, including communication support, consideration of support networks, and supported decision-making, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the service or create an undue burden.
The bill would affect federal health care and civil rights compliance by adding a specific anti-discrimination rule for transplant-related decisions while incorporating and cross-referencing existing disability law, including the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and ACA section 1557. It also creates an enforcement pathway through the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights, while preserving other available legal remedies. The bill expressly states that it does not override stronger state or local protections for people with disabilities.
Overall, the available context suggests broad support for the bill’s anti-discrimination purpose, and there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials indicating organized opposition. The measure appears framed as a civil rights and access-to-care bill intended to prevent blanket assumptions about disability from excluding people from transplant consideration. Any likely points of contention would center on how transplant teams assess medical significance, the scope of required accommodations, and whether the bill could constrain clinical discretion, though the text attempts to address those concerns through individualized evaluation and undue-burden/fundamental-alteration limits.
HB1520 would create a federal prohibition on disability-based discrimination in organ transplant evaluation, listing, referral, and post-transplant related services for covered health care entities. It would require reasonable modifications and auxiliary aids where needed, while allowing individualized medical assessments when a disability is medically significant to transplant outcomes. The bill would add a specific federal enforcement mechanism through HHS OCR and would not preempt stronger state or local disability protections.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate generally favorable sentiment toward expanding equal access to organ transplants for people with disabilities. In the materials provided, there are no committee transcripts, recorded votes, or other evidence of formal opposition or amendment debate. The measure appears to have passed the House and been referred in the Senate, suggesting legislative momentum, though the absence of discussion records limits assessment of broader political sentiment.
The main potential contention is the balance between anti-discrimination protections and transplant program discretion. Supporters are likely to emphasize that disability alone should not bar access to transplantation, while critics or cautious stakeholders may worry about how far required accommodations extend, whether support networks can be considered, and how transplant teams determine when a disability is medically significant. The bill tries to limit these disputes by allowing individualized evaluations, preserving medically appropriate decision-making, and exempting modifications that would fundamentally alter services or impose an undue burden.