Recently, the flu shot has been making headlines, not just as a national health event - but also as a political platform. Vice President Dick Cheney received his inoculation during the recent presidential election, much to the annoyance of the John Kerry campaign. The Kerry campaign had ridiculed the Bush campaign for announcing that healthy Americans should not get flu shots, in order to reserve the supply for senior citizens and infants. As unorthodox as the recommendation by the incumbent's campaign is, the Center for Disease Control put out the same prescription. Since the Bush campaign was being attacked as "irresponsible", it seems that the CDC should also have been implicated by the Kerry campaign the same way.
The commentary on the Vice President's flu shot should also be captioned with a line from the CDC's website: "Adults and children two years or age and older with chronic lung or heat disorders including heart disease and asthma". That is one of the groups highlighted as a group to receive flu shots. It should also be noted that former President Bill Clinton, a man who is out on the stump for Senator Kerry, had also received a flu shot. Why was Dick Cheney a point of contention for getting a flu shot?
Was it correct to place the blame on the President? Or was it the Kerry campaign (again) searching for a scapegoat? Fox News', Brit Hume, discussed a point (one who many other pundits have echoed) that American companies do not produce flu shots because of litigation, regulation, and price control.
A "New York Post" editorial laid out the reasons for which the flu shot shortage has come about. Over the years a steep decline in flu shot production came in response to "liability without fault." The "New York Post" cites "The Weekly Standard" in the process in which these drug companies could be held liable for damages in which negligence does not need to be directly proven. This trend, hooked with the government policy on flu shot where drug companies are limited from selling directly to physicians, but instead to the government who distributes the drugs to physicians, displays why the drop from 26 vaccine producing companies to four occurred. While the government does not purchase the plurality of doses, the risk of high-end lawsuits with the promise of little to no profit is hardly appealing.
This process has been in effect since the 1960s.
An interesting fact that may poke holes in the notion that there is a flu shot "crisis," a survey by the New York Post observed a local Brooklyn supermarket where they have received a surge of demand for flu shots in the hundreds when last year, no more than 30 people asked for a one. This flu shot shortage, as suspected, may have been overblown by the media, and is now being used as a political tool when it otherwise should not have really made a difference.
Regardless, President Bush, being informed of an impending shortage of flu shots, introduced his Health Act, which would reduce liability for health companies, and energize drug companies to produce more flu shots for the coming season. The bill passed in the House, but died in the Senate. Senator John Edwards voted against it, while Senator Kerry was (as usual) absent for the vote.
It looked like another hypocritical move by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, where they continued to tell the voters that they also believe medical liability is a huge problem with healthcare. Despite the fact that Senator Edwards made his millions from battling medical companies, and their constant allegations that the President cares more about insurance companies than the American people, it can be said that the Kerry/Edwards team cared for the American people only when it came to defending them for financial settlements. It makes you wonder which group was their higher priority, trial lawyers or medical companies.
It's the United States' stringent rules on drug manufacturing that has bogged down the flu shot industry. With the decline of domestic flu shot companies, the United States has grown dependent on only two, which leaves them with the responsibility of over 100 million doses. Earlier this year, Chiron, a British company, was hit with a contamination of its Liverpool office, which has been a huge buffer on the United States' supply - nearly wiping out half of the year's supply.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviewed Dr. Andrew Pavia, Chairman of the Task Force on Pandemic Flu of the Infectious Disease Society of America, who says, "Many vaccine producers feel the U.S. regulatory bars are too expensive." Other countries have less restrictive codes on their manufacturers, but have cheaper methods. It is the cheaper methods that leave Washington D.C. questioning the quality and its compatibility with foreign products.
Within the article, there was also a reminder of the liability concerns that these companies have. Medical liability has been at the forefront of the healthcare debate, and Senator Bill Frist laid it out clearly at the Republican National Convention, telling stories of physicians reluctant to continue their practices and discouraging others to enter the field. While the insurance industry may seem to have the upper hand with this administration, they cannot help but be fed up with the regulations on the books that promote outrageous malpractice suits. President Bush's efforts to reduce these malpractice awards, but his efforts have been met with opposition in the Senate and from his political enemies.
Government regulation of flu vaccines would add some wrinkles. At this point, the federal government only purchases about five to ten percent of total flu doses, but according to Pavia, the private sector has been much more efficient at handling the flu vaccine than state governments. Also, considering the differing volumes of flu vaccinations, the different strains of the flu, the average shelf life of a flu vaccine, and the fluctuating demand, trying to figure out how many doses to buy is no easy feat.
There are numerous anomalies that come with the production and distribution of flu vaccines, and playing scapegoat is not productive. Unfortunately, the Kerry campaign played the blame game anyway, but it's only another notch on the laundry list of problems that The President cannot be held accountable for. The flu vaccine issue not going away any time soon, and contrary to what many believe, American healthcare policy has no direct involvement with the attainability of a flu vaccination. If the rash of American companies halting flu vaccine production in the past couple decades is any indication, it goes to show how much malpractice litigation has come to chip away at the institution of healthcare.
As "medical malpractice" suits rise, so do insurance premiums. Some people are dashing off with millions after suing a company, and the only thing the industry can do is be prepared for more of an onslaught. Efforts have been made to suppress the action, but trial lawyer advocates consistently have upheld their financial values in the Senate.
Recently, the flu shot has been making headlines, not just as a national health event - but also as a political platform. Vice President Dick Cheney received his inoculation during the recent presidential election, much to the annoyance of the John Kerry campaign. The Kerry campaign had ridiculed the Bush campaign for announcing that healthy Americans should not get flu shots, in order to reserve the supply for senior citizens and infants. As unorthodox as the recommendation by the incumbent's campaign is, the Center for Disease Control put out the same prescription. Since the Bush campaign was being attacked as "irresponsible", it seems that the CDC should also have been implicated by the Kerry campaign the same way.
