Incentives for Doctors for giving Vaccines?

[DogmaHunter]

I have never been to a hospital, or pharmacy except for stiches once, and some required/forced immunizations when I was in the States. I try very hard to stay away from them. That is just my personal tactic to survive: it may work differently for others.

Your personal tactic "to survive", is to get the least vaccinations as possible?

So what else is part of that well-thought-through strategy? Only crossing the streets when the red light is on?

 

[ananda]

Less-then-optimal health results in more medical expenses, which the insurance has to pay for.

Your argument doesn't add up.

Healthy population = less claims for insurance companies = more money for insurance companies.

Anything less then a healthy population, equals more claims which means less money for insurance companies.

That's why deductibles have been skyrocketing. Members are basically paying out-of-pocket, while still paying the insurers hundreds or thousands a month for "coverage" - and then insurers are also additionally subsidized by the Public via the government. The insurers win.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's why deductibles have been skyrocketing. Members are basically paying out-of-pocket, while still paying the insurers hundreds or thousands a month for "coverage" - and then insurers are also additionally subsidized by the Public via the government. The insurers win.

Well, for starters, no private insurers should be part of this equation in the first place, as they contribute NOTHING to health care and in fact are only out to grab a piece of the pie. The only effect his has on common Joe, is that prices skyrocket and that getting proper health care becomes a hassle.

Having said that, my point remains...
The healthier a population, the less claims insurers will receive.

I think it's reasonable to state that a health insurer prefers his clients to pay their monthly fees while remaining in perfect health, as opposed to paying their monthly fee and having medical expenses every couple of months.

 

[comana]

What percentage of healthy people on insurance do you think would maximize profits for insurance companies? We know it isn't 1 (=100%,) and the argument I think we both agree on is that the answer isn't 0 (=0%, or marginal) either. Moreover, we know insurance companies are doing it to make a profit - not because they care. I am curious as to what you think that percentage would be - and the ethical and sociological implications of the existence of said percentage.

And, there is a way to analytically find this number that maximizes profits, so the answer isn't negligible - and it is used by the companies to do exactly what I am asking. If you want to give me your opinion on a more "precise" and accurate figure using this way, that would be fine too - just let me know the parameters you used.

Or, I can do that too, and we could even compare. It may be clear, perhaps, that I don't agree with you at all - in any capacity - but, lets see if we can discuss this from a purely objective direction (i.e. math.) Then, let's use those numbers and qualify their implications.

Why do we "know" it isn't 100%? Other than 100% is impossible. Logically, a for profit insurance operation profits highest with minimal payout to premiums in. Why do you think insurance companies are constantly raising premiums and cost share amounts? Simple answer is it brings in more money than they pay out on a per member basis. ACA required they pay for more services so they recoup that by putting more of the cost-share onto the member. High deductibles are just a way for them to "pay" for these services while passing it off to the member as their cost-share.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Why do we "know" it isn't 100%? Other than 100% is impossible. Logically, a for profit insurance operation profits highest with minimal payout to premiums in. Why do you think insurance companies are constantly raising premiums and cost share amounts? Simple answer is it brings in more money than they pay out on a per member basis. ACA required they pay for more services so they recoup that by putting more of the cost-share onto the member. High deductibles are just a way for them to "pay" for these services while passing it off to the member as their cost-share.

This thread is actually about the ethics of doctors who take incentives for things they are salaried to do already.

The insurance tangent was to highlight the fact that insurance companies do not make money from very sick, or very healthy people. Because insurance is a gamble, the safest bet is to gamble on chronic. Healthy persons are financially and physically more mobile than chronic and very sick persons. Chronic persons are more likely to stay with their insurer, and in the state in which they reside - because they depend on relatively low cost insurance coverage.

It is paradoxical because it is a scam. That was the point of the tangent on insurance.

But, as said, the main topic is the ethical implications of doctors that must receive incentives for doing their salaried jobs.

 

[comana]

This thread is actually about the ethics of doctors who take incentives for things they are salaried to do already.

The insurance tangent was to highlight the fact that insurance companies do not make money from very sick, or very healthy people. Because insurance is a gamble, the safest bet is to gamble on chronic. Healthy persons are financially and physically more mobile than chronic and very sick persons. Chronic persons are more likely to stay with their insurer, and in the state in which they reside - because they depend on relatively low cost insurance coverage.

It is paradoxical because it is a scam. That was the point of the tangent on insurance.

But, as said, the main topic is the ethical implications of doctors that must receive incentives for doing their salaried jobs.

I still do not see an ethical problem with this scenario. You have inferred from this incentive offering that these doctors will not do their job otherwise. No evidence has been provided that these doctors were not doing their job until the incentive was offered.

Also, most doctors are not salaried but work on a fee-for-service basis. They get paid when and, frequently, if insurance pays the claim. I'm sure those who receive this incentive are quite happy to get a little extra for their efforts.

I don't see it any different than an employee receiving incentive pay above their regular wage. In fact it is more like a profit sharing incentive. Doctors who emphasize prevention for their patients help to keep insurance payouts down and thus increased profits. Insurance throws the doctors a bone as a reward.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I still do not see an ethical problem with this scenario. You have inferred from this incentive offering that these doctors will not do their job otherwise. No evidence has been provided that these doctors were not doing their job until the incentive was offered.

Also, most doctors are not salaried but work on a fee-for-service basis. They get paid when and, frequently, if insurance pays the claim. I'm sure those who receive this incentive are quite happy to get a little extra for their efforts.

I don't see it any different than an employee receiving incentive pay above their regular wage. In fact it is more like a profit sharing incentive. Doctors who emphasize prevention for their patients help to keep insurance payouts down and thus increased profits. Insurance throws the doctors a bone as a reward.

OK.