The cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney is about 0.7 QALY/​k$ to 20 QALY/​k$.
The cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund is about 10 QALY/​k$.
Donating a kidney is about 6 % to 100 % as cost-effective as donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund.
Note that this comparison is often unfair, as suggested in this comment, since donating to effective charities and donating a kidney are usually not mutually exclusive.
Cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveDirectly in units of doubling consumption[1] (CEGDU): 3.35 U/​k$.
Ratio between the cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund and to GiveDirectly[2] (RMIFGD): 8.
Value of health in units of doubling consumption[3] (HU): 2.3 U/​QALY.
Calculations
Cost of donating a kidney (CK): (CKL * CKH)^0.5 = 4.18 k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney (CEKL to CEKH): BK /​ CKH = 0.704 QALY/​k$ to BK /​ CKL = 16.0 QALY/​k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveDirectly (CEGD): CEGDU /​ HU = 1.46 QALY/​k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund[4] (CEMIF): RMIFGD * CEGD = 11.7 QALY/​k$.
Ratio between the cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney and donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund (RL to RH): CEKL /​ CEMIF = 6.04 % to CEKH /​ CEMIF = 137 %.
“To this point, we’ve typically[8] funded opportunities that pass a relatively high bar: eight (or more) times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly”.
In the cited report from GiveWell, 2.3 refers to the “value of averting one year of life lived with disease/​disability (YLD)”. This corresponds to the value of averting 1 DALY, which is assumed here to be equivalent to the value of creating 1 QALY.
Note that the EA Global Health and Development Fund “recommends grants to GiveWell top charities as a baseline, but will recommend higher-risk grants they believe to be more effective (in expectation) than GiveWell top charities”.
Cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney
Summary
The cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney is about 0.7 QALY/​k$ to 20 QALY/​k$.
The cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund is about 10 QALY/​k$.
Donating a kidney is about 6 % to 100 % as cost-effective as donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund.
Note that this comparison is often unfair, as suggested in this comment, since donating to effective charities and donating a kidney are usually not mutually exclusive.
The data and calculations are presented below.
Data
Benefits of donatig a kidney (BK): 14 QALY.
Cost of donating a kidney (CKL to CKH): 877 $ to 19,887 $.
Global GDP per capita in 2020 (GDPpC): 10.9 k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveDirectly in units of doubling consumption[1] (CEGDU): 3.35 U/​k$.
Ratio between the cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund and to GiveDirectly[2] (RMIFGD): 8.
Value of health in units of doubling consumption[3] (HU): 2.3 U/​QALY.
Calculations
Cost of donating a kidney (CK): (CKL * CKH)^0.5 = 4.18 k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney (CEKL to CEKH): BK /​ CKH = 0.704 QALY/​k$ to BK /​ CKL = 16.0 QALY/​k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveDirectly (CEGD): CEGDU /​ HU = 1.46 QALY/​k$.
Cost-effectiveness of donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund[4] (CEMIF): RMIFGD * CEGD = 11.7 QALY/​k$.
Ratio between the cost-effectiveness of donating a kidney and donating to GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund (RL to RH): CEKL /​ CEMIF = 6.04 % to CEKH /​ CEMIF = 137 %.
To be precise, units of doubling consumption for one person for one year.
“To this point, we’ve typically[8] funded opportunities that pass a relatively high bar: eight (or more) times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly”.
In the cited report from GiveWell, 2.3 refers to the “value of averting one year of life lived with disease/​disability (YLD)”. This corresponds to the value of averting 1 DALY, which is assumed here to be equivalent to the value of creating 1 QALY.
Note that the EA Global Health and Development Fund “recommends grants to GiveWell top charities as a baseline, but will recommend higher-risk grants they believe to be more effective (in expectation) than GiveWell top charities”.