or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Do Doctors Have Financial Inentive to Get their Patients Fully Vaccinated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do Doctors Have Financial Inentive to Get their Patients Fully Vaccinated? - Page 2

post #21 of 37

Wow, apparently it's 25%.  That's higher than I would've expected.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/vital-signs-refusing-patients-who-wont-vaccinate-a-healthier-candy/253297/

 

 

Quote:
25 -- The percentage of pediatricians who have refused to serve patients because they won't give their children vaccines, according to a survey by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Source: "Doctors 'Fire' Patients Who Refuse Vaccines for Their Children: Ethical?" CBS.
post #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Wow, apparently it's 25%.  That's higher than I would've expected.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/vital-signs-refusing-patients-who-wont-vaccinate-a-healthier-candy/253297/

 

 

greensad.gif

post #23 of 37

Wow that is unbelievable that so many doctors refuse to treat patients who have not been vaccinated. I have never come across this in Australia. The main exclusion here is that children are not allowed to attend schoo,l day care etc if there is an outbreak of a disease and they have not been vaccinated. also a government family payment  is withheld if children are not vaccinated.

post #24 of 37

To my knowledge in the UK there's no negative over not being vaccinated. School access is free to all, and you could not be refused medical care. I could be wrong about that. 

 

OK so Wikipedia tells me we had compulsery vaccination up until the formation of the NHS in 1946. I had no idea! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_Act

 

I couldn't find anything on the NHS website about what happens if you don't vaccinate today:

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/Landing.aspx

 

This article in the Guardian in 2009 talking about the rise in Measles cases in the UK talks about the US "no jab, no school" laws as if they don't exist here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/10/measles-mmr-vaccine

 

They also ran an article on a public debate if the UK should require MMR vaccines for school entry (which we don't)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2009/feb/10/mmr-vaccination-measles?intcmp=239

 

So it seems the rules in the US are much stricter than here. I had no idea. 

post #25 of 37

PMum, I am curious, how do you feel about the proposal to give every UK school child the flu vaccine annually? I am British and was administered BCG and Rubella at [boarding] school. I have no idea if my mother gave her permission or not, we were just lined up and jabbed. I hope that for those that don't want it for their children there is a transparent opt out. Obviously the program will be lucrative for AstraZeneca.

 

Vaccinate all school children against flu: experts -Telegraph

post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

PMum, I am curious, how do you feel about the proposal to give every UK school child the flu vaccine annually? I am British and was administered BCG and Rubella at [boarding] school. I have no idea if my mother gave her permission or not, we were just lined up and jabbed. I hope that for those that don't want it for their children there is a transparent opt out. Obviously the program will be lucrative for AstraZeneca.

 

Vaccinate all school children against flu: experts -Telegraph

 

This is anecdotal, but fits in well here.

 

Once upon a time in a galaxy far away (Quebec, circa 1988) massive amounts of school children were re-given the MMR vaccine as there was an outbreak.

 

Any child who could not prove (and by prove I mean each individual entry in their health book had to be signed, dated and stamped) had to be re-vaccinated.  Maybe there were exemptions at the time, I don't know…..

 

What I do is that about 75% of my class was re-vaccinated. I was 16 at the time, my memory is quite clear. Their health book were "not filled out properly."   There is no way 75% of my classmates were not up to date with their shots.  It later came out that the clinics in charge of the shots were being paid a bonus for every child they vaccinated.

post #27 of 37

I have BCG and Rubella at school too, but I clearly remember my friend's Mum had her opted out of BCG. I remember for bad reasons (she was teased about standing out in that way), and I also remember that my friend later got the jab by her own choice. 

 

The flu programme sounds sensible to me. I'd have no problem with my kids getting it at school, and I would assume like all other vaccinations in the UK there'd be an easy opt out. 

post #28 of 37

For medicaid is completely understandable because when you have medicaid the state it self provides the vaccinations which doctors don't pay for because they are provided for children and families with low income resources and the doctor only collects the vaccine administration of $10.00 the private companies are the ones that actually charge a pretty penny for the vaccine itself.And for those who do not want vaccines thats fine to just fill out a refusal to vaccinate form or go to your nearest health department and fill out an exception form for your child.

post #29 of 37
I recently read some research talking about how most doctors lose money on vaccinations. I'll post it later when I'm back a my computer.
post #30 of 37
“More than half (53% [n = 310]) of the respondents reported that their practice had experienced a decrease in profit margin from providing pediatric immunizations in the previous 3 years… A “significant decrease (>20%)” in profit margin was reported by 21% (n = 123) of respondents overall and by more decision-makers than non–decision-makers.”


“A key finding from our study is that, in the previous year, 5% of pediatricians and 21% of family physicians (11% of all respondents) have seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured patients."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/6/1319.full
post #31 of 37
Thread Starter 

Hmm.  That study is from a Georgia study done by a few doctors with the following associations: Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. It was funded by the CDC, during the tenure of Julie Geberding, who left the following year in order to become president of Merck's vaccine division.

 

It also seems to be at odds with the following information from http://vaxtruth.org/2011/09/how-can-it-be-about-the-money-immunizations-are-free-right/

 

Vaxtruth has a handy little chart (http://vaxtruth.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/image.png) that shows the per-child income per pediatrician visit, with an average income of $1647 for the first year alone (7 well-child visits, 14 shots).  The fees for the doctor visits added up to $1279, while the vaccine fees totaled $368.

 

And that's just for the first year, well-child visits only.

 

Vaxtruth also looks at the CDC-funded study.


They found that it was a voluntary survey that was sent to 199 total offices--and only 34 responded. Those who responded reported an average 17 hours were required to complete the 13-page survey. This survey looked at vaccine fees only--not the fee for the office visit itself.

 

Vaxtruth again: "They [the CDC-funded study] also pose an interesting paradigm.  They state that the amounts most insurance companies pay for the administration fees are much lower that what the doctor charges or should be paid and in so doing the doctor is losing money on these fees.  This points to the exact reasoning that Dr. Sears mentions in his quote below, that doctors are kicking patients from their practices, so they can make their year end bonus and come out on top.  This is a disgrace."

 

Remember the bonuses the pediatricians are given when they have 100% vaccine compliance rates?

 

There's even a study on bonuses for vaccination:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508536/

 

And here's a study on "How to Improve Influenza Vaccination Rates in the US"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249250/

"[This review] also illustrates four potential determinants of influenza vaccination based on the empirical analyses analyzing the U.S. nationally representative populations. These determinants include the ongoing influenza epidemic level, mass media reporting on influenza-related topics, the reimbursement rate for providers to administer influenza vaccination,

and vaccine supply.

 

I don't know which is more chilling--that they are deliberately using mass media to convince people to buy an ineffective vaccine (the flu shot), without informing the buyer of the risks, or that they are studying the effect of provider reimbursement on vaccine uptake (again, of a vaccine that is ineffective).

 

No matter which way you slice it, it's unethical.

 
post #32 of 37
The study about bonuses concluded they aren't very effective. It in no way implies they are commonplace or widespread.
post #33 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The study about bonuses concluded they aren't very effective. 

Conclusions: "Bonuses sharply and rapidly increased immunization cover-age in medical records.  However, much of the increase was the result of better documentation. A bonus is a powerful incentive, but more structure or education may be necessary to achieve the desired results."

post #34 of 37
Right, they didn't actually improve coverage, just charting.
post #35 of 37

Rrrrchel-

Please edit or remove your comment about unbiased links.  If you wish to discuss what you find to be biased in the link, go ahead and do so.  But your comment is innappropriate and baiting. 

post #36 of 37
I don't see what's baiting about calling a site that clearly takes and advocates a particular perspective on vaccines not neutral or biased. Isn't that what those words mean? What would the reaction be if I posted a link to sciencebasedmedicine or respectful insolence and expected that to prove something to taxi?
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see what's baiting about calling a site that clearly takes and advocates a particular perspective on vaccines not neutral or biased. Isn't that what those words mean? What would the reaction be if I posted a link to sciencebasedmedicine or respectful insolence and expected that to prove something to taxi?

If such a site were posted, I would expect other members to debate the validity of the site, not make a comment that infers that the PP has abandoned reason.  If you wish to discuss this further, you can PM me or an admin.  I am removing your post for the time being, as it is still a personal comment and not a direct comment on the link you have a problem with.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Do Doctors Have Financial Inentive to Get their Patients Fully Vaccinated?