Incentives for Doctors for giving Vaccines?

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟991,040.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
$400/10 vaccine childhood combo 10 per eligible member.

Page 15.

http://cognitivetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2016-BCN-BCBSM-Incentive-Program-Booklet.pdf

I don't think it is limited to vaccines; there is an itemized incentive plan for multiple procedures and consultations.


As far as I can see this is a medical insurer providing financial incentives to its medical service providers to encourage them to carry out preventative medicine.

It seems to be a sensible business practice and I'm having trouble finding an ethical issue.

I'm sure you have a valid point but I'm not sure what it is?
OB
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
$400/10 vaccine childhood combo 10 per eligible member.

Page 15.

http://cognitivetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2016-BCN-BCBSM-Incentive-Program-Booklet.pdf

I don't think it is limited to vaccines; there is an itemized incentive plan for multiple procedures and consultations. Comprehensive diabetes care (monitoring for nephropathy & HbA1c < 8%) & PHQ9 testing were 2 other things I saw.

"Each program rewards providers who encourage their patients to get preventive screenings and procedures, such as eye exams and mammograms, and for achieving patient outcomes such as ensuring diabetic members have their blood sugar controlled."

They don't flat out get $400, though.

There's a bunch of metrics they have to meet (star rating, improvement, etc) every certain period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: comana
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
"Each program rewards providers who encourage their patients to get preventive screenings and procedures, such as eye exams and mammograms, and for achieving patient outcomes such as ensuring diabetic members have their blood sugar controlled."

They don't flat out get $400, though.

There's a bunch of metrics they have to meet (star rating, improvement, etc) every certain period.


Of course they don't get $400 flat out or it would be illegal; the perpetuity of incentives for recommending procedures and actions that would ultimately be profitable for insurance companies is the issue.

Why do doctors need incentives to act on behalf of insurance companies? Even more, why would a doctor take money to do things s/he is already receiving a salary for?

It would be like me getting extra money for assigning certain problem sets, and exams that don't necessarily benefit the student - despite my job description and salary to do this. It is an ethical issue.

And, page 15 clearly says doctors get paid $400/Combo 10 - for every eligible candidate. You don't see anything wrong, or conflicting with your doctor recommending a procedure that will gain them extra income?
 
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
As far as I can see this is a medical insurer providing financial incentives to its medical service providers to encourage them to carry out preventative medicine.

It seems to be a sensible business practice and I'm having trouble finding an ethical issue.

I'm sure you have a valid point but I'm not sure what it is?
OB

Post 4
 
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Are you implying that people getting money for something is immoral?

Double dipping is immoral, no?

Doctors already get paid to care for patients - including medical advice, and procedures.

To take incentive money from insurance companies pushing their idea of medicine is ethically suspicious.

This isn't as if the doctors don't make a salary; they make their salary, and get bonuses/kicks for carrying out procedures considered profitable for insurance companies.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟991,040.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
If a doctor carries out a program of preventative medicine (vaccination or breast screening for example) it seems to me three things happen:
1. The patient is either prevented from getting sick or an illness is potentially caught early, ergo the patient benefits
2. If the patient is less likely to get ill or is caught early the ongoing payouts by the insurer are reduced
3. The doctor gets rewarded for a sensible practice and I'm sure the insurer has done the math to make sure they (the insurer)save more than they pay out.

Where I come from doctors usually own their own practice and are paid per procedure - not salary. Is it different in the US?

I'm still having difficulty seeing a problem?
OB
 
  • Agree
Reactions: squirrel123
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
I think that double dipping is an integral part of capitalism.

Well, we have just telegraphed the question to whether or not capitalism is moral.

Hopefully, it is easy to see capitalism is NOT moral, or even immoral. It is amoral: the only important thing in capitalism is CAPITAL.

So, why would I trust my doctor to act on behalf of an amoral financial system - through incentives given by insurance companies that seek to make a CAPITAL gain?

In other words, justifying these kickbacks as the way of the economy doesn't actually get to the substance of the problem: that entities trusted to protect, heal and promote convalescence would choose to escort their services to the patient on behalf of a third party - for the purposes of an incentive.

The entire book gives the details on several incentive plans for doctors - controversial and accepted. The issue is with doctors choosing to receive kickbacks for doing something to a patient that a third party asks. Can you understand the implications of this?

It isnt just vaccines, it is with many different preventative recommendations and procedures. Insurance companies don't care about the health of the person, they care about how long can a person continue to pay so that the company continues to receive a profit. So, strange bedfellows are made when the person we are told to trust with our life is making deals with an entity that could care less about our health.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
If a doctor carries out a program of preventative medicine (vaccination or breast screening for example) it seems to me three things happen:
1. The patient is either prevented from getting sick or an illness is potentially caught early, ergo the patient benefits
2. If the patient is less likely to get ill or is caught early the ongoing payouts by the insurer are reduced
3. The doctor gets rewarded for a sensible practice and I'm sure the insurer has done the math to make sure they (the insurer)save more than they pay out.

Where I come from doctors usually own their own practice and are paid per procedure - not salary. Is it different in the US?

I'm still having difficulty seeing a problem?
OB

Insurance companies do not care about the health of the person, they care about how long you can continue to pay into the company.

So, why, then, would someone who you are told to trust with your life willingly, and continually make deals with a company that has no regard for the life of the patient - just how much s/he can pay into the system?

The implications are very serious, especially when it comes to convincing a mass of people that a certain recommendation or procedure is necessary.
 
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
If a doctor carries out a program of preventative medicine (vaccination or breast screening for example) it seems to me three things happen:
1. The patient is either prevented from getting sick or an illness is potentially caught early, ergo the patient benefits
2. If the patient is less likely to get ill or is caught early the ongoing payouts by the insurer are reduced
3. The doctor gets rewarded for a sensible practice and I'm sure the insurer has done the math to make sure they (the insurer)save more than they pay out.

Where I come from doctors usually own their own practice and are paid per procedure - not salary. Is it different in the US?

I'm still having difficulty seeing a problem?
OB

Ah, you are not from the States
Usually, doctors do not make as much money working at a hospital as they do their own practice, but the salary is guaranteed more or less - working for a hospital.

And, the insurance companies in the States dictate how hospitals itemize equipment, employees and how procedures are carried out.

There are very few hospitals that are State, or Federally owned. As such, most hospitals in the States are FOR-PROFIT. I am not sure about Australian medical system(s), but most people do not realize the hospital is FOR PROFIT.

So, the implication here is why a doctor that makes a salary would choose to perform procedures that allow them to make a kickback from an insurance company - insurance companies that dont care about the wellbeing of the patient at all.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
There are very few hospitals that are State, or Federally owned. As such, most hospitals in the States are FOR-PROFIT. I am not sure about Australian medical system(s), but most people do not realize the hospital is FOR PROFIT.

So, the implication here is why a doctor that makes a salary would choose to perform procedures that allow them to make a kickback from an insurance company - insurance companies that dont care about the wellbeing of the patient at all.

Well, if I had to flush it out, I'd assume that the less bad things that happen that the insurance company has to pay on, the more they save.

Take mammograms. The earlier it is found, the cheaper it is to treat.

If doctors "pushed" mammograms more, the outcome would be as optimal for the patient (health), doctors (immediate money) and insurance (future money). Insurance would be paying out more now, as opposed to more later.

This strategy seems to be beneficial to all parties.
 
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Well, if I had to flush it out, I'd assume that the less bad things that happen that the insurance company has to pay on, the more they save.

Take mammograms. The earlier it is found, the cheaper it is to treat.

If doctors "pushed" mammograms more, the outcome would be as optimal for the patient (health), doctors (immediate money) and insurance (future money). Insurance would be paying out more now, as opposed to more later.

This strategy seems to be beneficial to all parties.

Beneficial, perhaps. But, what it is saying under the surface (if we take your analysis - which I can lean toward) is that doctors - the ones who are supposed to have our lives in their hands - have to be convinced and given an incentive for pushing our optimal health by the coaxing of an insurance company through incentive programs. Another question begged is, "why is a for profit insurance company involved in medical recommendations, and procedure choice - so much so that it actually influence what each individual MD does to his or her patient?

It is messy at best, amoral in general. I don't get incentives for teaching specific material during my lectures, and if I did it would be a suspicious gesture: my job is already to instruct students as best as possible; my "incentive" is a class average above 70, for example, because it means I am effectively teaching.


Why do doctors need to be given incentives to do their job besides their salary?
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Beneficial, perhaps. But, what it is saying under the surface (if we take your analysis - which I can lean toward) is that doctors - the ones who are supposed to have our lives in their hands - have to be convinced and given an incentive for pushing our optimal health by the coaxing of an insurance company through incentive programs. Another question begged is, "why is a for profit insurance company involved in medical recommendations, and procedure choice - so much so that it actually influence what each individual MD does to his or her patient?

It is messy at best, amoral in general. I don't get incentives for teaching specific material during my lectures, and if I did it would be a suspicious gesture: my job is already to instruct students as best as possible; my "incentive" is a class average above 70, for example, because it means I am effectively teaching.


Why do doctors need to be given incentives to do their job besides their salary?

You keep using the words "need to" and "be convinced", but I don't think those best suit the situation.

They don't need to, but some have the opportunity to do so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
You keep using the words "need to" and "be convinced", but I don't think those best suit the situation.

They don't need to, but some have the opportunity to do so.

The reason I keep using those words is to draw attention to the justification for doctors taking incentive money from insurance companies to do something they are supposed to do.

Why does a doctor want to take incentive money for a procedure or recommendation s/he is already being paid to do?

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:...

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can but I will always look for a path to a cure for all diseases.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirmed.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.​

This is the Hippocratic Oath Doctors allegedly subscribe to. They have already sworn to fulfill the oath to the best of their abilities:

  • Respect hard-found medical research
  • Apply all measures required for the benefit of the infirmed: including rejecting therapeutic nihlism and overtreatment.
  • Bedside manner
  • Rejecting the ego that comes with professing that one knows everything (i.e. say: I don't know.)
  • Treat patients according to the human - not as a science project
  • Disease prevention is important, but they took an oath to CURE what they can i.e. they will NOT make a patient chronic in sickness for the sake of money, time or circumstance.
Insurance companies that give incentives to doctors to recommend treatment, or carry out procedures means that the doctor is not living up to his or her oath to apply all measures required for the benefit of the infirmed, to treat the patients as human (as opposed to a science project,) and to CURE what they can, and try to prevent what they cant.

You shouldn't have to tell a doctor, "If you recommend this procedure, or perform this procedure, we will give you $X." That is making patients into commodities. And, it goes dangerously downhill from there. If the doctor subscribed to the oath, s/he would not need an insurance company to incentivize what they swore to do (unless it isn't backed, doesn't help the patient, and/or simply makes a profit for the insurance companies.)

The fact that they accept kickbacks and bonuses aside from their salary for doing something they are supposed to do is ethically questionable - especially considering many doctors heal the sick for FREE. It isn't like the AMA is giving these recommendations; insurance companies are giving these kickbacks if doctors do what insurance companies recommend as a procedure or advice.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The reason I keep using those words is to draw attention to the justification for doctors taking incentive money from insurance companies to do something they are supposed to do.

Why does a doctor want to take incentive money for a procedure or recommendation s/he is already being paid to do?

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:...

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can but I will always look for a path to a cure for all diseases.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirmed.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.​

This is the Hippocratic Oath Doctors allegedly subscribe to. They have already sworn to fulfill the oath to the best of their abilities:

  • Respect hard-found medical research
  • Apply all measures required for the benefit of the infirmed: including rejecting therapeutic nihlism and overtreatment.
  • Bedside manner
  • Rejecting the ego that comes with professing that one knows everything (i.e. say: I don't know.)
  • Treat patients according to the human - not as a science project
  • Disease prevention is important, but they took an oath to CURE what they can i.e. they will NOT make a patient chronic in sickness for the sake of money, time or circumstance.
Insurance companies that give incentives to doctors to recommend treatment, or carry out procedures means that the doctor is not living up to his or her oath to apply all measures required for the benefit of the infirmed, to treat the patients as human (as opposed to a science project,) and to CURE what they can, and try to prevent what they cant.

You shouldn't have to tell a doctor, "If you recommend this procedure, or perform this procedure, we will give you $X." That is making patients into commodities. And, it goes dangerously downhill from there. If the doctor subscribed to the oath, s/he would not need an insurance company to incentivize what they swore to do (unless it isn't backed, doesn't help the patient, and/or simply makes a profit for the insurance companies.)

The fact that they accept kickbacks and bonuses aside from their salary for doing something they are supposed to do is ethically questionable - especially considering many doctors heal the sick for FREE. It isn't like the AMA is giving these recommendations; insurance companies are giving these kickbacks if doctors do what insurance companies recommend as a procedure or advice.

If doctors are not doing all they can, then that's on the doctor.

Not the insurance company for trying to incentivize doctors what they should be doing.

Your upseted-ness appears to be misdirected.
 
Upvote 0

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
If doctors are not doing all they can, then that's on the doctor.

Not the insurance company for trying to incentivize doctors what they should be doing.

Your upseted-ness appears to be misdirected.

I am not upset at all, I am actually more perturbed at the apology for their actions than the actual action.

If a doctor does not adhere to the hippocratic oath, then s/he should reconsider his/her profession.

But, that is not the point at all. The point is that insurance companies incentivize activity that is contradictory to the oath doctors took, and it is ethically questionable in general. If that isn't clear, or if you are choosing to ignore this point, then that is a different issue.

But, for insurance companies to recommend medical procedures and advice to DOCTORS for the purposes of increasing profit, and incentivizing the breeches of the hipocratic oath is ethically questionable at best - for the insurance company, or the doctor. And, the patient should beware if they care about their medical treatment received.

Overtreatment, and treating the patient like a science project are two major parts of the oath that conflict with this incentive program.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟991,040.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
I am not upset at all, I am actually more perturbed at the apology for their actions than the actual action.

If a doctor does not adhere to the hippocratic oath, then s/he should reconsider his/her profession.

But, that is not the point at all. The point is that insurance companies incentivize activity that is contradictory to the oath doctors took, and it is ethically questionable in general. If that isn't clear, or if you are choosing to ignore this point, then that is a different issue.

But, for insurance companies to recommend medical procedures and advice to DOCTORS for the purposes of increasing profit, and incentivizing the breeches of the hipocratic oath is ethically questionable at best - for the insurance company, or the doctor. And, the patient should beware if they care about their medical treatment received.

Overtreatment, and treating the patient like a science project are two major parts of the oath that conflict with this incentive program.


How does overtreatment increase the profits of the insurance company?
OB
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Non sequitur
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ygrene Imref

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2017
2,636
1,085
New York, NY
✟70,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
How does overtreatment increase the profits of the insurance company?
OB

If you can make someone chronic, instead of extremely sick, or healthy, then you can have that person as a patient and insurance customer for as long as the condition (and their pockets) last.

Instead of finding and dealing with actual prevention and CURES, medicine in the states focus on making things chronic so that the most amount of money can be put into insurance.

A chronic, controllable disease or ailment does not drain insurance of money, and it keeps the person dependent on insurance.

It is all for capital gains; overtreatment can lead to more ailments, which leads to more chronic disorder/disease in the patient - which keeps them dependent on insurance.

This was actually blatantly alluded to when it was nationally demanded that young, healthy people get on health insurance so that they could put money into the system - since they will likely not need it very much, but will continue to pay. They are being told that they are being scammed, but I don't think people care.
 
Upvote 0