Doctor has had vaccines revoked by SF, San Mateo and Alameda counties over allegations of improper distribution

Just a day after NPR reported that SF-based healthcare startup One Medical administered COVID vaccines to ineligible patients, non-patient staff, friends and members of the hospital. family of company executives, public health departments in San Francisco, San Mateo and Alameda counties announced that they were ending their vaccination partnerships with the company.

According to NPR reports via internal emails among doctors and staff, One Medical began receiving a vaccine allowance and distributing it to members in early January. One Medical apparently allowed members – who pay an annual membership fee of $ 199 to receive concierge-type care – to schedule vaccine appointments for two weeks without certifying their eligibility (although proof of eligibility could have been demanded in person), and an internal email would have discouraged medical staff from “police” patient eligibility. A button was reportedly added to the appointment portal on January 14 to allow patients to certify they were healthcare workers or otherwise eligible, but NPR had leaked emails suggesting doctors at One Medical were ringing the bell. alarm in recent weeks about healthy patients in their twenties and thirties. receive vaccines through the company, in defiance of state and local protocols for vaccine priority.

Forbes had broken the story two weeks earlier, citing a comment from an anonymous employee who said that when a person dishonestly certifies their eligibility and shows up for their meeting, “the policy is that we don’t still not turn [patients] a way.”

The San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) released a statement to NPR saying it had allocated 12,000 doses of vaccine to One Medical specifically for distribution to workers performing “home support services … and to health workers ”. And he said the ministry “expects all of its vaccine supply partners to follow the state and SF DPH vaccine eligibility guidelines.”

But now, as NBC Bay Area reports, three Bay Area counties, including San Francisco, have stopped all vaccine allocations to One Medical.

“The problems with One Medical were [a] disappointment, but are not representative of the county’s robust and successful vaccination effort, ”San Mateo County officials said in a statement to NBC.

As the Chronicle reported on Wednesday, the SFDPH has asked One Medical to return 1,600 doses that it has not yet distributed. Kate Larson of ABC 7 obtained a copy of the very cordial letter sent by SFDPH, which does not reprimand any wrongdoing and ends with: “We appreciate your ongoing work in the overall response to this pandemic, and we will contact you if we are prepared to assign additional doses to One Medical for administration at a later date. “

One Medical said on Wednesday it had fired some employees who were allegedly responsible for the improper distribution of vaccine doses, as ABC 7 reported. But they simultaneously suggested that media reports of improper distribution had “challenged the values ​​of our enterprise”.

“Any claim that we largely and knowingly ignore eligibility guidelines is in direct contradiction to our current approach to vaccine administration,” a spokesperson for One Medical said. said in a press release, which then lists various methods the company uses to screen patients and confirm vaccine eligibility. “Our data currently shows nationally that 96% of people vaccinated by One Medical have eligibility documents, and 4% were generally vaccinated according to zero waste protocols.”

One Medical also said its contributing members did not represent the majority of people the company had vaccinated.

“The majority of people vaccinated by One Medical across the United States are not our own annual paying members, but have been referred by health departments, including health care workers, nursing home patients, educators and the homeless, ”the spokesperson said. .

Still, the company fired “several” employees for disobeying protocols, according to ABC 7, claiming it had a “zero tolerance policy” for such actions.

Issues related to fairness and distribution protocols are likely to arise many times in the coming months.

“I think we have to be very vigilant from an ethical standpoint, not just looking at what the regulations say, but what are the factors and the ways in which structural racism is actually embedded in the way the distribution channels are in place, “said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, speaking to ABC 7. And he suggests that it is everyone’s personal responsibility to take their turn and not try to cut the line before being eligible.

Previously: SF-based doctor reportedly allowed ineligible patients and home-based staff to get vaccinated

Photo via One Medical