Payola?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
"For both states, the researchers examined all payments over $100—the cap on marketing activities recommended by the American Medical Association and a trade group representing the pharmaceutical industry. "It's really hard based on the information we had to determine which payments were appropriate and which were not," Ross says, "because payment descriptions were really vague."'

What kinds of payments over $100 ARE appropriate?:confused:
 
there was another thread on this, but i totally agree with you, there needs to be a closer examination of the relationship of those big companies to doctors...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Since these laws have been passed assuming that any relationship between docs and pharma is bad it's likely that whatever the data showed it would have been reported as evidence of malfesance. In this case the fact that the data is incomplete is being used to make that same allegation. I notice that there is no backlash against the state AG's offices which were the ones mandated to collect the data. No, if the data is bad it's obvious that "big pharma" is up to no good again.
NervousNed said:
there was another thread on this, but i totally agree with you, there needs to be a closer examination of the relationship of those big companies to doctors...
Click to expand...
Duly noted. What does that mean exactly. Will your "closer examination" reveal what you think it will. Can anyone prove that a doc who works as a consultant for a pharma company prescribed a drug to his patients in bad faith? Will the "closer examination" result in arbitrary amounts that are "too much?" If a doc writes for a drug and the producer gave him a pen is that OK? How about a $50 dinner? How about a $1000 consulting or speaking fee? You've gotta draw the line somewhere.

As for the article it points out how much the authors and the public don't understand how medicine works.
Patients themselves may not want to police doctors, but surveys have found that they expect a doctor's employer to have policies to deal with potential conflicts of interest. "If the information's not transparent to the public or patients," Ross says, "it means the information's not transparent to department chairs or the people who own these practices." Strengthening the laws would require greater enforcement and a simpler format for making the information publicly accessible, he says.
Click to expand...
In the same paragraph they talk about wanting the "practice owners" or dept. chairs to get the info. Then they swicth back to the general public getting the info. Which is it? Lots of docs are contractors who don't work for anyone but themselves. Who will review their info? It seems the "sunshine" will only occur once private financial info of docs is on public display.
Pharmaceutical companies' "marketing techniques and their reluctance to disclose them invite further misgivings about the industry," Troyen Brennan of Aetna Inc., in Hartford, Conn., and Michelle Mello of the Harvard School of Public Health write in an editorial accompanying the study in this week's JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association. "Drug companies' attempt to evade regulations may backfire," they conclude, if "public resentment over noncompliance with existing laws sparks demand for additional regulation."
Click to expand...
Ah, so it's the insurance industry that's going to ride in on a big white horse and save the day for the lowly consumer. Yeah, good luck with that one.
 
for what kinds of things do pharm co's need md consultants? i can imagine some things, but i don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread
Top