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