{"id":10649,"date":"2026-03-02T15:35:08","date_gmt":"2026-03-02T20:35:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/?p=10649"},"modified":"2026-03-03T10:35:51","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T15:35:51","slug":"medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"

Organ transplantation was an emerging and uncommon medical treatment when Congress enacted<\/a> Medicare in 1965 to provide hospital and physician coverage for older Americans. Although surgical trials had demonstrated that kidney transplantation could succeed, long-term graft survival remained uncertain. Immunology was still developing, and reliable tissue-matching techniques were limited. In creating Medicare and Medicaid through the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Congress likely did not anticipate a federal financing structure for high-cost transplant surgery.<\/p>\n

Yet within Medicare\u2019s first decade, Congress departed from the program\u2019s age-based eligibility framework, extending coverage to individuals with end-stage renal disease (ESRD<\/a>) and establishing Medicare as the principal federal payer for dialysis and kidney transplantation for eligible patients, regardless of age.<\/p>\n

A Therapy Without a Payer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kidney transplantation emerged as a viable therapeutic option in select academic medical centers during the 1950s and 1960s. During the same period, dialysis evolved from an acute, short-term intervention into a maintenance therapy capable of sustaining patients with irreversible kidney failure.* Both therapies remained technologically complex and expensive, limiting access to specialized facilities.<\/p>\n

Kidney transplantation was the first organ transplant to demonstrate sustained clinical success. In 1954, surgeons performed a successful transplant between identical twins<\/a>, confirming that organ replacement could restore renal function under ideal immunologic conditions. In the following decade, advances in immunosuppressive therapy<\/a>, including azathioprine and corticosteroids, expanded transplantation beyond genetically identical donors.<\/p>\n

During this same period, dialysis was evolving<\/a> along a parallel path. What had initially been an acute, short-term intervention became a maintenance therapy capable of sustaining life in patients with irreversible kidney failure. By the mid- to late 1960s, both dialysis and transplantation offered the possibility of extended survival. Yet each remained technologically complex and expensive, with access largely limited to specialized centers.<\/p>\n

Even as dialysis and transplantation became more clinically effective, payment mechanisms remained fragmented. Medicare did not originally consider<\/a> either option “established services.” Further, many patients with kidney failure were younger than 65 and therefore ineligible for Medicare. Medicaid provided assistance to certain low-income individuals, but eligibility standards varied by state. Private insurance was not structured<\/a> to cover the ongoing cost of dialysis or transplantation, and hospitals absorbed substantial uncompensated care. By the late 1960s, financing had become a principal barrier to access, even as clinical feasibility continued to improve.<\/p>\n

In 1967, the Committee on Chronic Kidney Disease\u2014commonly known as the Gottschalk Committee for its chair, nephrologist Dr. Carl W. Gottschalk\u2014submitted its report to the U.S. Bureau of the Budget. The committee concluded that kidney failure had become a treatable chronic condition and produced one of the first systematic estimates of the national cost of maintenance dialysis.<\/p>\n

By quantifying both patient need and projected expenditures, the report reframed end-stage renal disease as a federal financing issue rather than solely a clinical concern. It recommended<\/a> that \u201ca national program be initiated for the treatment of end-stage renal disease\u2026 for all persons\u2026 for whom it is medically indicated,\u201d financed through amendment of the Social Security Act to extend coverage beyond age-based eligibility criteria.<\/p>\n

The Gottschalk Committee did not enact policy. It did, however, supply Congress with clinical evidence, cost projections, and administrative analysis at a moment when Medicare\u2019s institutional structure was still developing. The framework it outlined closely resembled the eligibility expansion adopted in 1972.<\/p>\n

Medicare\u2019s Early Structure<\/strong><\/p>\n

Medicare was organized around categories of service rather than diagnoses. Coverage depended on whether services were considered \u201creasonable and necessary.\u201d In the 1960s, program administrators\u2014first within the Social Security Administration and later under the Health Care Financing Administration\u2014were still defining how those standards would be applied.<\/p>\n

In its early years, Medicare operated through service categories rather than diagnoses. The program reimbursed hospital and physician services deemed \u201creasonable and necessary,\u201d and kidney transplantation for beneficiaries age 65 and older could be covered under this general authority. There was no separate transplant entitlement, and most individuals with ESRD were younger than 65 and therefore ineligible.<\/p>\n

As transplant programs expanded and dialysis capacity increased, policymakers faced a chronic condition that was treatable but financially catastrophic. Kidney failure did not fit neatly within Medicare\u2019s age-based eligibility framework, yet the affected population and projected costs were increasingly quantifiable.<\/p>\n

The 1972 Amendments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The early 1970s were marked by debate over national health insurance and cost containment. ESRD had become a defined policy issue. The patient population remained relatively small, and clinical evidence supporting dialysis and transplantation had strengthened. Budget projections\u2014based in part on the Gottschalk analysis\u2014suggested that extending coverage would be manageable.<\/p>\n

In 1972, Congress amended the Social Security Act to extend Medicare eligibility to individuals with ESRD who required dialysis or kidney transplantation, regardless of age. The amendment applied solely to ESRD and did not alter Medicare\u2019s broader age-based framework, marking the first diagnosis-specific expansion of the program.<\/p>\n

Supporters emphasized access to life-sustaining care. Critics raised concerns about precedent and cost. The provision was enacted with bipartisan support.<\/p>\n

In January 1973, The New York Times published an editorial titled \u201cMedicarelessness<\/a>,\u201d warning that Congress had expanded benefits without sufficient attention to long-term fiscal implications. Although the piece addressed Medicare more broadly, the new ESRD benefit illustrated the underlying concern: the federal government was assuming responsibility for expensive, technology-dependent care with uncertain long-term fiscal implications.<\/p>\n

Reshaping the Delivery System<\/strong><\/p>\n

Coverage expansion reshaped renal care delivery. Once Medicare became the primary payer for ESRD, dialysis capacity increased, facilities expanded, and standards became more uniform. Through payment policy and participation requirements, the federal government assumed a greater role in structuring renal services.<\/p>\n

Transplant programs also expanded. Medicare financing supported ESRD dialysis and the transplant procedure itself, but post-transplant coverage was time-limited in early law, and a specific Part B benefit for outpatient immunosuppressive drugs was not created until 1986. As outcomes improved, transplantation became a more common therapeutic option and, in many cases, less costly over time than indefinite dialysis.<\/p>\n

Actual program growth exceeded early projections. Initial estimates anticipated<\/a> roughly 10,000 to 15,000 eligible patients. Today, more than 800,000<\/a> individuals in the United States are living with ESRD. Total Medicare spending for ESRD patients in 2023 was $55.3 billion. Growth reflects demographic aging, rising prevalence of diabetes and hypertension, expanded clinical eligibility, technological improvements, and improved survival.<\/p>\n

Experience with the ESRD benefit informed Medicare\u2019s later approach to other high-cost therapies, including transplant-related pharmaceuticals and payment models addressing chronic disease management.<\/p>\n

The Broader Transplant Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ESRD amendment predated the modern national coverage determination process<\/a>. At the time, Medicare\u2019s methods for evaluating emerging therapies were still evolving. Decisions were guided by available clinical evidence, professional consensus, and projected fiscal impact rather than long-term population-level outcome data developed through standardized review processes.<\/p>\n

In extending eligibility for dialysis and kidney transplantation, Congress positioned Medicare not only as a payer but as an active participant in the financing of complex, technology-dependent care. The ESRD benefit contributed to the program\u2019s institutional experience in assessing and reimbursing high-cost medical interventions that required specialized infrastructure and ongoing oversight.<\/p>\n

As surgical outcomes improved and institutional standards matured, Medicare coverage for heart, liver, and lung transplantation followed through a combination of statutory authority, regulatory interpretation, and evolving coverage policy.<\/p>\n

In 1984, Congress enacted the National Organ Transplant Act<\/a>, establishing a national organ procurement and allocation framework and prohibiting the sale of human organs. Although NOTA did not amend Medicare directly, the program, as a principal payer for transplant services, intersected with this framework through reimbursement policy, conditions of participation, and facility certification standards.<\/p>\n

A Structural Precedent<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the late 1960s, transplantation was experimental, dialysis capacity was limited, and Medicare was newly implemented. Extending coverage to ESRD required Congress to depart from the program\u2019s age-based framework in response to evolving medical practice.<\/p>\n

Within its first decade, Medicare assumed responsibility for financing a complex, high-cost therapy. That decision continues to shape the program\u2019s engagement with emerging medical technologies.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*As previously described in Applied Policy\u2019s account<\/a> of the Scribner shunt, the Seattle Artificial Kidney Center relied on a lay admissions committee to determine which patients would receive dialysis, underscoring both expanding clinical capability and the constraints imposed by limited capacity.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Organ transplantation was an emerging and uncommon medical treatment when Congress enacted Medicare in 1965 to provide hospital and physician coverage for older Americans. Although surgical trials had demonstrated that kidney transplantation could succeed, long-term graft survival remained uncertain. Immunology was still developing, and reliable tissue-matching techniques were limited. In creating Medicare and Medicaid through […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":10678,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","ap4_related_services":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[431],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-medicare-reimbursement"],"yoast_head":"\nMedicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage - Applied Policy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage - Applied Policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Organ transplantation was an emerging and uncommon medical treatment when Congress enacted Medicare in 1965 to provide hospital and physician coverage for older Americans. Although surgical trials had demonstrated that kidney transplantation could succeed, long-term graft survival remained uncertain. Immunology was still developing, and reliable tissue-matching techniques were limited. In creating Medicare and Medicaid through […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Applied Policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-02T20:35:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-03T15:35:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1139846437.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1254\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"837\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"William Rogers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"William Rogers\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"William Rogers\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7373eca073724b1799a89779428c49df\"},\"headline\":\"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-02T20:35:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-03T15:35:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1342,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1139846437.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Medicare Reimbursement\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/\",\"name\":\"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage - Applied Policy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1139846437.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-02T20:35:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-03T15:35:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7373eca073724b1799a89779428c49df\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1139846437.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1139846437.jpg\",\"width\":1254,\"height\":837,\"caption\":\"Surgeons passing scissors to each other\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Applied Policy\",\"description\":\"Health policy and reimbursement consulting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7373eca073724b1799a89779428c49df\",\"name\":\"William Rogers\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/bill_website-300x300.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/bill_website-300x300.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/bill_website-300x300.jpg\",\"caption\":\"William Rogers\"},\"description\":\"Chief Medical Officer\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/author\\\/william-rogers\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage - Applied Policy","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage - Applied Policy","og_description":"Organ transplantation was an emerging and uncommon medical treatment when Congress enacted Medicare in 1965 to provide hospital and physician coverage for older Americans. Although surgical trials had demonstrated that kidney transplantation could succeed, long-term graft survival remained uncertain. Immunology was still developing, and reliable tissue-matching techniques were limited. In creating Medicare and Medicaid through […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/","og_site_name":"Applied Policy","article_published_time":"2026-03-02T20:35:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-03T15:35:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1254,"height":837,"url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1139846437.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"William Rogers","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"William Rogers","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/"},"author":{"name":"William Rogers","@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7373eca073724b1799a89779428c49df"},"headline":"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage","datePublished":"2026-03-02T20:35:08+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-03T15:35:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/"},"wordCount":1342,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1139846437.jpg","articleSection":["Medicare Reimbursement"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/","name":"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage - Applied Policy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1139846437.jpg","datePublished":"2026-03-02T20:35:08+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-03T15:35:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7373eca073724b1799a89779428c49df"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1139846437.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1139846437.jpg","width":1254,"height":837,"caption":"Surgeons passing scissors to each other"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/medicare-and-the-origins-of-federal-transplant-coverage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Medicare and the Origins of Federal Transplant Coverage"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/","name":"Applied Policy","description":"Health policy and reimbursement consulting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7373eca073724b1799a89779428c49df","name":"William Rogers","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/bill_website-300x300.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/bill_website-300x300.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/bill_website-300x300.jpg","caption":"William Rogers"},"description":"Chief Medical Officer","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/author\/william-rogers\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10649"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10649\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10685,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10649\/revisions\/10685"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}