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

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 37 Old 07-02-2012, 06:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)

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.

 
Taximom5 is online now  
#32 of 37 Old 07-02-2012, 06:48 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The study about bonuses concluded they aren't very effective. It in no way implies they are commonplace or widespread.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#33 of 37 Old 07-02-2012, 07:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
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."

Taximom5 is online now  
#34 of 37 Old 07-02-2012, 07:12 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Right, they didn't actually improve coverage, just charting.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#35 of 37 Old 07-03-2012, 11:40 AM
 
QueenOfTheMeadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: with the wildlife
Posts: 18,210
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

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. 


 
QueenOfTheMeadow is offline  
#36 of 37 Old 07-03-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#37 of 37 Old 07-03-2012, 01:23 PM
 
QueenOfTheMeadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: with the wildlife
Posts: 18,210
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
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.


 
QueenOfTheMeadow is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off