Full Version: Another Flu Vaccine Shortage
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
I’m a night person, but I got up earlier than usual yesterday. On the first Tuesday of every month I have breakfast with two longtime friends who are also retired teachers. While getting dressed I heard a report on CNBC that the U. S. had lost half of it’s flu shot vaccine because a British manufacturer’s entire stock had been contaminated.
I went on to breakfast worried about the problem. I have had asthma since childhood. It was worse then than now. A few years ago I underwent treatment from an allergist. The allergy shots helped. Still the allergist told me to make sure I got a flu shot each year.
On the way home, I saw a sign on a Walgreen’s saying that they would be giving flu shots on October 9th. I called the Walgreen’s near my home and they are doing it on October 20th.
When I called my allergist’s office I was told that they hadn’t received their supply yet. They advised me to get a shot somewhere else if I could. I called another allergist’s office. They didn’t have any. This allergist suggested that I call public health. Public health had vaccine available and I got my shot yesterday afternoon.
Today, I talked to a conservative friend (a Pat Buichanan conservative) I see quite often at the coffee shop. Given the shortages in recent years, he was incensed that Health and Services Secretary Tommy Thompson had not taken steps in the direction of greater diffusion in the manufacture of flu vaccine.
Senator Patric Leahy seeminly agreed with my friend.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6183476/
CNBC also aired another story today about the possible impact of a flu epidemic on the economy. According to CNBC many employers offer free flu vaccine and consider it a good return on investment, Flu shots for workers means lower absentee rate and greater production. When children get the shots, parents take fewer days off to nurse children suffering from the flu.
The story and link below explain the problem.
<snip>
<snip>
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...T6PVjU&refer=us
Questions for debate:[b]
1 Given shortages in three of the past four years, should Health and Human Services have taken steps to blunt the shortage?
2. Is diffusion of production a possible solution? What else can be done to insure that shortage of flu vaccine does not happen again?
3. Given that available shots are in the hands of private distributors through chains like Walgreen’s, what steps can be taken to insure that those who need the vaccine most get it?
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
Note: I offer this thread, not in the spirit of heated partisan debate, but as a quest for answers to a potentially devastating problem. Having no expertise in this area, I will appreciate all replies, especially from members who work in health care fields.
I went on to breakfast worried about the problem. I have had asthma since childhood. It was worse then than now. A few years ago I underwent treatment from an allergist. The allergy shots helped. Still the allergist told me to make sure I got a flu shot each year.
On the way home, I saw a sign on a Walgreen’s saying that they would be giving flu shots on October 9th. I called the Walgreen’s near my home and they are doing it on October 20th.
When I called my allergist’s office I was told that they hadn’t received their supply yet. They advised me to get a shot somewhere else if I could. I called another allergist’s office. They didn’t have any. This allergist suggested that I call public health. Public health had vaccine available and I got my shot yesterday afternoon.
Today, I talked to a conservative friend (a Pat Buichanan conservative) I see quite often at the coffee shop. Given the shortages in recent years, he was incensed that Health and Services Secretary Tommy Thompson had not taken steps in the direction of greater diffusion in the manufacture of flu vaccine.
Senator Patric Leahy seeminly agreed with my friend.
QUOTE
A lawmaker on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of poor planning.
‘If they cannot be prepared for the seasonal flu — an annual occurrence — what does that portend about their ability to prepare for biological terrorist attacks?” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urging steps to force more U.S. vaccine production during a Senate health hearing. “Our constituents and members of Congress need to ask why this country is so dependent on just two suppliers of this important vaccine.’
‘If they cannot be prepared for the seasonal flu — an annual occurrence — what does that portend about their ability to prepare for biological terrorist attacks?” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urging steps to force more U.S. vaccine production during a Senate health hearing. “Our constituents and members of Congress need to ask why this country is so dependent on just two suppliers of this important vaccine.’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6183476/
CNBC also aired another story today about the possible impact of a flu epidemic on the economy. According to CNBC many employers offer free flu vaccine and consider it a good return on investment, Flu shots for workers means lower absentee rate and greater production. When children get the shots, parents take fewer days off to nurse children suffering from the flu.
The story and link below explain the problem.
QUOTE
Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The fourth shortage of flu vaccine in five years shows the need for more manufacturers and new technology, according to the U.S. National Institutes for Health and some members of Congress.
<snip>
QUOTE
Flu and its complications in the U.S. cause 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations a year. Between 5 percent and 20 percent of Americans may come down with the virus in a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, prompting companies, including General Motors Corp. and Boeing Co., to provide flu shots for employees.
Chicago-based Boeing, the world's second-biggest airplane maker, had plans to provide free flu shots to 58,000 U.S. employees and is determining how the shortage will affect its program, Boeing spokesman Dean Tougas said yesterday. Detroit- based General Motors, the world's biggest automaker, is studying the impact of the Chiron suspension on its vaccination plans and may require 24 to 48 hours to make an assessment, spokeswoman Sharon Baldwin said.
Chicago-based Boeing, the world's second-biggest airplane maker, had plans to provide free flu shots to 58,000 U.S. employees and is determining how the shortage will affect its program, Boeing spokesman Dean Tougas said yesterday. Detroit- based General Motors, the world's biggest automaker, is studying the impact of the Chiron suspension on its vaccination plans and may require 24 to 48 hours to make an assessment, spokeswoman Sharon Baldwin said.
<snip>
QUOTE
NIH scientists have testified about the need for more vaccine research for years, the NIH's Fauci said. ``It would be much easier for us to deal with unexpected shortages if we had an easier way to make vaccine,'' Tommy Thompson, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said yesterday in a telephone call with reporters.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...T6PVjU&refer=us
Questions for debate:[b]
1 Given shortages in three of the past four years, should Health and Human Services have taken steps to blunt the shortage?
2. Is diffusion of production a possible solution? What else can be done to insure that shortage of flu vaccine does not happen again?
3. Given that available shots are in the hands of private distributors through chains like Walgreen’s, what steps can be taken to insure that those who need the vaccine most get it?
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
Note: I offer this thread, not in the spirit of heated partisan debate, but as a quest for answers to a potentially devastating problem. Having no expertise in this area, I will appreciate all replies, especially from members who work in health care fields.
Questions for debate:[b]
[B]1 Given shortages in three of the past four years, should Health and Human Services have taken steps to blunt the shortage?
Yes. They should have diverted funding from other less significant public health hazards.
2. Is diffusion of production a possible solution? What else can be done to insure that shortage of flu vaccine does not happen again? Diffusion is definitely a possible solution. Going even further, allow the market itself to provide the vaccines. (all flu vaccines in America come through the gov't)
3. Given that available shots are in the hands of private distributors through chains like Walgreen’s, what steps can be taken to insure that those who need the vaccine most get it? Walgreen's is not giving the shots, they are hosting the shot clinics, just like they'll frequently host blood drives. The shots are handled through the local health departments, who get their supplies through higher gov't sources.
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution? Evidence suggests that, while that may help in the short term, long term it will only further tighten the supply.
[B]1 Given shortages in three of the past four years, should Health and Human Services have taken steps to blunt the shortage?
Yes. They should have diverted funding from other less significant public health hazards.
2. Is diffusion of production a possible solution? What else can be done to insure that shortage of flu vaccine does not happen again? Diffusion is definitely a possible solution. Going even further, allow the market itself to provide the vaccines. (all flu vaccines in America come through the gov't)
3. Given that available shots are in the hands of private distributors through chains like Walgreen’s, what steps can be taken to insure that those who need the vaccine most get it? Walgreen's is not giving the shots, they are hosting the shot clinics, just like they'll frequently host blood drives. The shots are handled through the local health departments, who get their supplies through higher gov't sources.
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution? Evidence suggests that, while that may help in the short term, long term it will only further tighten the supply.
QUOTE
Questions for debate:[b]
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
I could be wrong, but pharmaceutical companies are in to researching and developing groundbreaking medicines for cancer and things like cholesterol. I doubt they find the vaccination area to be one that is highly lucrative. I guess that I'd be for one of two things: (1)Dangle a "golden carrot" in front of them by offering a "price plus cost" contract to produce vaccines, guarantee them double profits over what they would normally make in a contract and you might entice a few of them; (2)Just announce that the government is going to start production of the vaccine entirely if option #1 doesn't cut it after say-five years.
3. Given that available shots are in the hands of private distributors through chains like Walgreen’s, what steps can be taken to insure that those who need the vaccine most get it?
The information I got from a September 29 article by CDC says somethig different about how supply is handled,
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r2k0928
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
Would you care to share your "evidence" with us? I'm for private enterprise, but when there is a breakdown of this magnitude the feds should step in.
Here are some links to current CDC information on the vaccine shortage:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/0405shortage.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/0405season.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldget.htm
QUOTE
Walgreen's is not giving the shots, they are hosting the shot clinics, just like they'll frequently host blood drives. The shots are handled through the local health departments, who get their supplies through higher gov't sources.
The information I got from a September 29 article by CDC says somethig different about how supply is handled,
QUOTE
All influenza vaccine for use in the United States is produced in the private sector and virtually all flu vaccine is distributed in the United States through private-sector distributors for use by health care providers.
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r2k0928
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
QUOTE
Evidence suggests that, while that may help in the short term, long term it will only further tighten the supply.
Would you care to share your "evidence" with us? I'm for private enterprise, but when there is a breakdown of this magnitude the feds should step in.
Here are some links to current CDC information on the vaccine shortage:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/0405shortage.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/0405season.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldget.htm
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 10 2004, 11:23 PM)
You know better than to post one-liners or links without explanation. Be constructive.
TOPICS:
1 Given shortages in three of the past four years, should Health and Human Services have taken steps to blunt the shortage?
2. Is diffusion of production a possible solution? What else can be done to insure that shortage of flu vaccine does not happen again?
3. Given that available shots are in the hands of private distributors through chains like Walgreen’s, what steps can be taken to insure that those who need the vaccine most get it?
4. Should the federal government, through Health and Human Services and NIH, take a greater role in vaccine research, production and distribution?
From BikerDad's article:
The situation with these vaccines has been troublesome ever since the federal government poked its nose into the early push to implement Hillary-care in the 1990s.
CLINTON SAYS VACCINE PRICES ARE SCANDALOUS
Now that vaccine makers can not make a profit on vaccines, there are far fewer companies making vaccines.
The Vaccines for Children program, although it has its heart in the right place, was disastrous.
Hillary's Vaccine Shortage
So much for managed health care. One thing it almost guarantees: shortages.
The idea is high minded, but the implementation rarely works out well.
QUOTE
Mix the unbridled enthusiasm of public health officials with the market realities of vaccine production, and you have a recipe for disaster. It doesn't have to be this way. At the very least, the CDC could curb their enthusiasm and recognize that as long as supplies are limited, vaccine will need to be rationed. And although it's beyond the mission of the CDC to control vaccine production and supply, they should make themselves aware of the supply situation before making sweeping pronouncements and recommendations.
But supplies also don't have to be as limited as they are. Trial lawyers and poor reimbursement rates have made vaccine production the orphan of the pharmaceutical industry. Few companies are willing to invest in developing newer vaccine production technologies. Thus the dilemma of the FDA committee earlier this year. Only two companies currently make the influenza vaccine. If one, or heaven forbid both, decide to stop we would be in dire straights. Better reimbursement rates for vaccines could help alleviate some of these woes. So could tort reform. If we only had the will.
But supplies also don't have to be as limited as they are. Trial lawyers and poor reimbursement rates have made vaccine production the orphan of the pharmaceutical industry. Few companies are willing to invest in developing newer vaccine production technologies. Thus the dilemma of the FDA committee earlier this year. Only two companies currently make the influenza vaccine. If one, or heaven forbid both, decide to stop we would be in dire straights. Better reimbursement rates for vaccines could help alleviate some of these woes. So could tort reform. If we only had the will.
The situation with these vaccines has been troublesome ever since the federal government poked its nose into the early push to implement Hillary-care in the 1990s.
CLINTON SAYS VACCINE PRICES ARE SCANDALOUS
Now that vaccine makers can not make a profit on vaccines, there are far fewer companies making vaccines.
The Vaccines for Children program, although it has its heart in the right place, was disastrous.
Hillary's Vaccine Shortage
QUOTE
The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:
Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.
Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.
Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.
Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.
So much for managed health care. One thing it almost guarantees: shortages.
The idea is high minded, but the implementation rarely works out well.
QUOTE
The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured.
QUOTE
So much for managed health care. One thing it almost guarantees: shortages.
The idea is high minded, but the implementation rarely works out well.
The idea is high minded, but the implementation rarely works out well.
There aren't' too many things we can predict with certainty, but there is one we can almost count on. When Republicans can't defend their programs and positions, rolling out that old deamon Bill Clinton for blame is always an option.
According to the Kansas City Star:
QUOTE
In the past four years, the number of companies making significant numbers of flu shots has fallen from four to just two - California-based Chiron, and Aventis Pasteur, which is based in France. Nationwide, the flu kills about 36,000 annually.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n.../9886644.htm?1c
Seemingly 50% of manufacturers have left the field under Bush. It's time for Republicans to stop assigning blame and take some responsibility. Bush has had four years and a Republican controlled Congresses to rectify the problem. The drug companies have had an administration sympathetic enough that they could have acted.
The blame Clinton game has become stale as week old bread and flat as left open pop.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.