COrrection - unvaccinated will save them money: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

[Guest guest]

a full on assault

many more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been

proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man

oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You

would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they

save money on UNvaccinated children

Sheri

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy

Rahul Parikh, Special to CNN

January 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Rahul Parikh says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has

been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children,

putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health

insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines

Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health

Insurance

Wakefield BMJ

Publishing Group Ltd.

Editor's note: Rahul K.

Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay

Area. Follow him on Twitter at

http://twitter.com/docrkp.

Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link

between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The

anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to

be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious

British Medical Journal calling his work " an elaborate fraud. "

Two new books, " Deadly Choices " by Offit and " The

Panic Virus " by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the

anti-vaccine movement.

Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to

vaccinate their children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves

of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can

effortlessly get on " Oprah " or any other TV talk show to

advance what is nothing short of a myth.

It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and

frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick

shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against

childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to

unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors

have to do the hard part.

Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but

for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was

considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate

their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance

premiums.

It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money into which

we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is

taken into account.

The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your

lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your

possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may

have to pay more.

Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate

their children?

The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between

refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the

one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in

comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading

" secondhand disease. "

Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego,

California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a

disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child

whose parents refused to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought

home the measles.

That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of

measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized.

Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at

an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak

was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the

hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent

to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to

private insurers.

Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down

and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none

of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism

deserve answers.

But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they

may agree. After all, their latest slogan is " vaccine

choice. "

In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told

Time magazine that " we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks

of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about

which vaccines to give our children. "

Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother

and others like her pay more for it.

As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay

higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of

proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a

little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle

toward common sense and preventive medicine.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul

Parikh.

[Guest guest]

It's so absurd. Oprah wasn't having shows on vaccine controversies back in 1993 when I quit vaccinating my children. And she certainly wasn't hosting McCarthy who was only 18 at the time and didn't even have her son for another dozen years. So, no media influence for me. In fact, no media coverage at all.

In fact, my children rarely go the to doctor's now, save for sports injuries--certainly nothing like the weekly visits I had with my son after his vaccine reaction, and the years of going to various specialists to get him healthy again.

So, maybe the good doctor has a point. Those who become sicker from their health decisions should pay more, for example, those who vaccinate because they are the ones more likely to need treatment for their various ailments, such as asthma, ADHD, cancers, and special services for learning disabilities?

Winnie

COrrection - unvaccinated will save them money: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsRecipient list suppressed: ;> > > a full on assault> many more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING > has > been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a > lab > coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?> > You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and > figure they save money on UNvaccinated children> Sheri> > > Make > anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums> http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/> > > > Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums> > By Rahul Parikh, Special to CNN> January 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST> tzleft.parikh.rahul.jpg> > STORY HIGHLIGHTS> * Rahul Parikh says the idea that autism and vaccines are > linked > has been totally discredited> * Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their > children, > putting them and others at risk> * He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially > higher > health insurance premiums> RELATED TOPICS> * Vaccines> * > Contagious > and Infectious Diseases> * Health Insurance> * Wakefield> * BMJ > Publishing Group Ltd.> > Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is > a > physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. > Follow > him on Twitter at > http://twitter.com/docrkp.> Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link > between > autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-> vaccine > movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be > nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious > British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud."> > Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic > Virus" > by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.> > Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still > refuse to vaccinate their children. But they do, frightened by > the > rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as > McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV > talk > show to advance what is nothing short of a myth.> > It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged > and > frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee > any > quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older > parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, > it's > much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy > has > it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.> > Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that > child > but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a > colleague of > mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who > refuse to > vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health > insurance premiums.> > It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money > into > which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers > pay, > risk is taken into account.> > The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn > your > lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on > your > possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then > you > may have to pay more.> > Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to > vaccinate their children?> > The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that > between > refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. > And > the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems > pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and > spreading "secondhand disease."> > Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, > California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of > a > disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A > child > whose parents refused to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and > brought > home the measles.> > That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases > of > measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized.> > Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be > quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The > total > cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and > substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in > the > money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and > doesn't > take into the account the costs to private insurers.> > Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to > slow > down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about > vaccines. > And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of > children > with autism deserve answers.> > But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about > this, > they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is "vaccine choice."> > In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego > child > told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze > the > risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our > decision about which vaccines to give our children."> > Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have > this > mother and others like her pay more for it.> > As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that > choice > pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the > combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened > in > San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors > will > help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.> > The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of > Rahul Parikh.>

[Guest guest]

Is this a serious threat do you think or just more rhetoric? It seems like (and

I'm hoping it is) just rhetoric. I would think that from an actuarial standpoint

they would at least need to compare the two groups statistically in order to

assess how much they are costing the companies. But then, confusingly, the

author goes on about the costs of quarantine etc. ... This is confusing because

1)Those costs seem to be associated more with the over reaction to the disease

rather than the actual treatment of it - it seems silly to quarantine people for

measles. And 2) insurance companies charge people based on their own perceived

health risks, not the health risks they may or may not cause in others.

Jen

[Guest guest]

If this is the case, then they should charge an extra fee for every time you

drink a coke, eat at Mc's, drink a beer, and the like! This is

ridiculous!

> >

> > Is this a serious threat do you think or just more rhetoric? It seems like

(and I'm hoping it is) just rhetoric. I would think that from an actuarial

standpoint they would at least need to compare the two groups

>

> Jen,

>

> In the '40's quarantine was the standard protcol from health departments

regarding measles. Quarantine signs on the front doors of houses.

>

> Jackie Noel

> www.sagaciousairedales.com

> www.sagaciousdogcountry.com

>