A Lesser-Known Vaccine Controversy

As a mother, I've anguished for years over various and at times hyperbolic arguments about vaccines. If you have children under 10, you know what they are -- vaccines cause autism, exposing your child to chicken pox is better than vaccinating, you shouldn't give a combination MMR, and most recently, how soon to have my daughter vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. (HPV has its own set of controversies, but I'll leave that to another time.)

I should point out that in the final analysis -- and nearly a decade apart -- all three of my children are fully up to date on all recommended vaccines. Our family's choice. That's not what this post is about.

What you may not be aware of is the real cost to pediatricians to accomplish their goal of having children vaccinated. Read this -- and advocate for your doctors. Insurance companies need to pay not just for the cost -- or a part of the cost -- of the vaccines, but also for the overhead and administration to inventory and give these immunizations.

This problem is reminiscent of the way insurance companies used to view mammograms. They'd be covered only if the woman was diagnosed with cancer. Huh? So we'd rather discourage early detection and instead pay for oncology treatment? There is a similar mindset at work here. Because most people have been immunized against diseases that have all but disappeared as a result, there's no red flag waving to say "Pay what you should!" And because it's the doctors, not the patients, in this case, receiving the brunt of the burden, the general public is largely unaware of the problem.