3 ms·
> In some cases, healthcare providers adopted policies to prohibit end-of-day shots because their lawyers told them that if they violated the tier list then the
by roenxi 2y ago
> In some cases, healthcare providers adopted policies to prohibit end-of-day shots because their lawyers told them that if they violated the tier list then the state would revoke the pharmacy’s permission to do business at all.
He does touch on this, but the article is long - I would invite a moment of reflection that a key contributing factor to patio11's success here is that he didn't have a license to revoke or compliance lawyers in his ear from the start of the process. I imagine both of those things were significant factors in deadening the natural impulse of the medical professionals in organising themselves. Bureaucracies don't punish people for mistakes. People get punished for non-compliance. That makes any novel scheme risky.
- patio11 2y agoBureaucracies don't punish people for mistakes. People get punished for non-compliance. It is a bit remarkable that nobody in California will take either a career or political hit for instituting a policy of redlining [0] in the provision of medical care, in the clear light of day, despite that being very obviously illegal, but that we actually literally prosecuted people for end-of-day shots. It calls to mind that mind that Joker quote: "Nobody panics if everything is going according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying." The health equity experts and medical ethicists were enthusiastically onboard with redlining. And so we redlined. [0] Access to medical care early was conditioned on living in the correct zip code, and there was a list of priority zip codes adopted by the state as a result of a coalition of county health offices pooling their resources to create that authoritative list. That list was designed, and I am using that word very deliberately, to proxy for race of residents of those zip codes.