http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7339/733
BMJ 2002;324:733 ( 23 March )
Letters
MMR vaccine uptake may be lower than reported because of manipulation of
target groups
EDITOR
One
issue seems to have been completely ignored in the current debate on vaccination
against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). The average uptake of the
MMR vaccine across England now stands officially at 84%, some way off
the recommended target of 95%. Although this rate is of considerable
concern in itself, vaccine uptake may be even lower than
reported.
Falling rates of vaccine uptake and the subsequent loss of income experienced
by several general practices failing to reach payment targets have
prompted some general practitioners to take unusual measures. They
have temporarily removed children whose parents object to vaccination
with MMR vaccine from their lists immediately before they would have
been included in the target group for vaccination. These children are
therefore excluded from the denominator for calculating vaccine
uptake. The general practitioners concerned write to parents
informing them of the "temporary measure" and undertake to provide
all usual services to these children at no cost. The immediate result
is that vaccine uptake appears artificially high and general
practitioners receive payment for reaching vaccine targets. After the
payment deadline is passed the patients are accepted back on to the
list.
As a result of this manipulation of vaccine coverage the population may be at
even greater risk of a measles outbreak than has been previously
supposed. Furthermore, because these patients are not registered,
capitation payments to primary care trusts may be reduced leading to
a loss of health care for local people. Such action continues in this
health authority area, despite strong advice against it from the
Department of Health, the health authority, and the local medical
committee. The General Medical Council has written that as long these
patients are treated on the same footing as other NHS patients, the
doctors' conduct will not give rise to ethical objections from the
council. Thus general practitioners engaged in this practice see no
reason to stop.
Although the Department of Health may be correct in its decision to persevere
with the MMR vaccine, it is time to review how vaccine target
payments are calculated. The Department of Health could consider
practices that pool risk. One partner in a practice could carry the
financial burden of patients who decline vaccination: currently
targets are calculated for the practice. The department could
consider accepting a written disclaimer from patients as acceptance
that a practice has made every effort to vaccinate the children
concerned.
While the current doubts about MMR vaccine, however unfounded, continue, this
manipulation of target figures is likely to increase, leading to more
uncertainty about the accuracy of vaccine coverage, and in effect
placing the population at greater risk.
Thomas J Scanlon, consultant in public health
medicine.
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 2PB
toms@esbhhealth.cix.co.uk
© BMJ 2002
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.