New Posts  All Forums:
 

Profits from vaccines - Page 4

post #61 of 85
12/25/12 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173477


Costs excluding the vaccine ... What else is there? The needle, I suppose. Alcohol to swipe the site, and the cotton to swipe with. All that costs $8? Not sure if I believe that.
Sponsored Links

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
post #62 of 85
12/25/12 at 1:11pm

Did you read the link I posted?
 

Quote:
We collected variable costs--costs that vary with the amount of services rendered--including cost of practitioner and staff time and supplies, using a cost accounting method, from 12 practices (4 pediatric practices, 4 family practices, and 4 public health agencies) in rural and urban areas in Colorado. For private practices, we estimated fixed costs--costs that do not vary with the amount of services, eg, rent and insurance).
post #63 of 85
12/25/12 at 1:26pm
I'm trying to figure out how much it costs without paying for the person's services. Just fixed costs, I suppose. Not sure how rent and malpractice or other insurance can be included, or utilities, since it's pretty difficult to determine how much is used to administer a vaccination.
post #64 of 85
12/25/12 at 1:36pm

Why should staff time not count?

post #65 of 85
12/25/12 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

And how much do the doctors get paid for vaccinating? Insurance companies reimburse them for the vaccines, and the administration, true?

 

It's not relevant.  The claim is that "big pharma" makes squadzillions out of immunisation, and that simply isnt true.  The doctors here make nothing out of immunisation by the way. It's free. Even if the vaccine needs to be purchased (such as whooping cough for adults) the doctor / nurse administers it for free.  

 

It's important for the anti vaccinationists to find fault in the process, but sometimes fault simply doesn't exists.

post #66 of 85
12/25/12 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Why should staff time not count?

I want to figure out how much they are charging for their time, compared to physical costs, compared to reimbursement.
post #67 of 85
12/25/12 at 2:03pm
Thread Starter 
Edited because that was rude, but come on. Moving the goals posts much?
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 12/25/12 at 2:26pm
post #68 of 85
12/25/12 at 2:26pm
lol.giflol.giflol.giflol.gif Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas, Mods! winky.giflol.giflol.gif

And same goes to the lot of you! I'll see you after the holidays for more spirited debate.
post #69 of 85
12/25/12 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Edited because that was rude, but come on. Moving the goals posts much?

 

I think she is trying to get the breakdown on vaccine costs.  shrug.gif  It seems relevant to me.

post #70 of 85
12/25/12 at 3:45pm
Thread Starter 
Vaccines are not hugely profitable for manufacturers or physicians. Especially when you factor in the opportunity cost of manufacturing vaccines vs more profitable drugs. A FEW vaccines have driven higher profits for the vaccine sector in recent years, but if the accusation is that manufacturers have been investing money in creating a cover up that spans decades, that doesn't really seem relevant.

To verify the lack of profits just look a what's actually happening. The number of manufactures making vaccines has plummeted. Acces to vaccines has suffered as a result due to shortages. Doctors are not offering vaccines in their offices, necessitating expansion or vaccine services to pharmacists. If you look at what's going on in vaccine manufacturing and delivery, it is not a picture of a hugely profitable industry.
post #71 of 85
12/25/12 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 
Here's an interesting (although not terribly detailed) piece on the cost of providing vaccines for doctors vs insurance reimbursement. Among other things it says vaccines as a whole are the number one operating expense for some doctors.
Quote:
The problem: Most insurers pay providers just the base cost of the vaccine. So if it costs $120 to buy a particular vaccine, insurance would pay back $120. But Lander points out that there are a lot more expenses that go into providing a vaccine, including the refrigeration, electricity and insurance required to store the shots. On average, doctors keep $100,000 to $150,000 worth of vaccines on hand each year.

The AAP estimates that the actual cost to providers to acquire vaccines could be 17% to 28% above the price of the vaccine itself.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/08/news/economy/health_care_vaccinations/index.htm
post #72 of 85
12/25/12 at 4:02pm
Thread Starter 
Here's another

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753140

Try not to let the part where they say vaccines were named one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century turn you off.
post #73 of 85
12/25/12 at 4:11pm
Thread Starter 
If you want to know just the cost of the shot, that information is readily available on the CDC website. If you want to know what reimbursement is, that seems to vary drastically.

If you want to know more information about how they broke down costs in the study, if you read the full text rather than just the abstract there is a lot more detail.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1582.long
post #74 of 85
12/25/12 at 6:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Vaccines are not hugely profitable for manufacturers or physicians. Especially when you factor in the opportunity cost of manufacturing vaccines vs more profitable drugs. A FEW vaccines have driven higher profits for the vaccine sector in recent years, but if the accusation is that manufacturers have been investing money in creating a cover up that spans decades, that doesn't really seem relevant.
 

Who said this?  

post #75 of 85
12/25/12 at 6:33pm
Thread Starter 
Hum, it's a pretty common accusation around here. Some version of it at least.
post #76 of 85
12/25/12 at 6:44pm

So...no one.   Got it.  

 

I find alluding to the idea that non-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists when no one has said anything conspiracy like on this thread somewhat smear campaign-y.  

post #77 of 85
12/25/12 at 7:17pm
Thread Starter 
Uhhh, maybe not on this thread, but there's a thread title at this very moment about a cover up/conspiracy. Sorry if I got my wires crossed. Everytime this comes up people are all "no! I don't believe that! " but then like a week later those same people ARE claiming a government/industry cover up and complaining about revolving doors etc etc. just like autism. It's "not about autism." Right. Until it is.

Why are profits from vaccines relevant, then, if its not as a motivator for talking up vaccines and hiding damaging information about them?
post #78 of 85
12/26/12 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Why are profits from vaccines relevant, then, if its not as a motivator for talking up vaccines and hiding damaging information about them?

I am not sure the amount of profit from vaccines is relevant. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong (just taking a stab here as I think we could go in circles):

 

You believe the profits from vaccines are sufficiently little that the pharmaceutical companies would not risk anything shady over vaccines, correct?

 

I believe many corporations (not all) place profits before people. I don't think it matters whether they make 1 million in profits or 50 billion - if their code of ethics is "buyer beware" or profits first, that is something that is going to be systemic.  It is not like they are going to be unethical in actions over product A but perfectly ethical regarding product B.     As such I believe no corporations should sit on government health and safety advisory committees.  I think it is a conflict of interest.  

 

I see two issues with your position as I see it:

 

1.  Are natural health companies off the hook and devoid of conflict of interest if they do not make lots (however "lots" is define) of money?  

2.  If vaccines do start making big money, are they now suspicious because they make big money?  That is the flip of the argument : if a company would not bother doing anything unethical over 

     small amounts of money, you are arguing it I more possible over big amounts of money.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

OT:  I am not sure why you brought up all roads leading to conspiracy theories and autism in your own thread.  The cynical part of me thinks it is simply any excuse to re-inforce stereotypes of those who hold a position you do not agree with; the more charitable part of me thinks you have some unresolved issues around all road leading to autism or what you see as conspiracy theories abounding.  If the latter, I would start a separate thread.  You will get some bites (nothing like an holiday 8*tch-fest orngtongue.gif).  Or not - derail your own thread.  

post #79 of 85
12/26/12 at 7:20am
Thread Starter 
I don't really understand what you're saying in the ot part so I can't respond, sorry.

My mentality is that pharm companies have no or little motivation to embark on some kind of cover up of information that vaccines are harmful. Period. It's not so much about the amount of profit, to me, as that they could make substantially more profit by NOT making vaccines.

That doesn't excuse them from the general amount of self interest that all commercial enterprises are subject to, though.
post #80 of 85
12/26/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


My mentality is that pharm companies have no or little motivation to embark on some kind of cover up of information that vaccines are harmful. Period. It's not so much about the amount of profit, to me, as that they could make substantially more profit by NOT making vaccines.
 

Bolding mine. Sure they do - even it is not directly tied to vaccine profit.  I am not saying they or anyone else is involved in a cover-up*, but...I think pretty much everyone in the vaccine industry would worry about public perception of credibility if vaccines are found to do more harm than good. With big pharm (as that is the topic) they might worry about people losing faith in other products.

 

*In general, and fwiw, I do not think there is a large scale cover-up.  I suspect most people in the vaccine industry genuinely believe in vaccines.  I think they are looking at public health and I am looking at individual health, and there in lies the difference.  I do think there is some manipulating of data, conflict of interest, loading the dice, etc from the vaccine industry (there is too much for my comfort) .....but I am not so sure I would go so far as to call it a cover-up.