Why is it the public business to know how much money docs got from Big Pharma?

[W19]

If people work, they got to get paid... What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[oncology2020]

Even government officials don't have to disclose where they the get their money..the same officials who imposed those strict regulations on us...

 

[W19]

Even government officials don't have to disclose where they the get their money..the same officials who imposed those strict regulations on us...

I guess we bend down and let these people do whatever they want to do to us.

 

[ForHumors]

Sometimes I visit this website to feel morally superior to the people who post on it... you guys don't disappoint.

 

[ERDOC555]

If people work, they got to get paid... What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

Why shouldn't the public get to know who is getting paid on the side, in medicine, politics, or anything else? Almost anytime one group is paying another group or person, there is an always a risk for conflict of interest.

I think these things should be out in the open so that consumers can make informed decisions. Wouldn't you want to know how much your physician was paid by a pharmaceutical company, especially if that was a large amount. Last time I checked no one gives away free money without expecting something in return.

 

[Taddy Mason]

Ethics - one of the more disregarded aspects of humanity.

 

[mcloaf]

If people work, they got to get paid...

Yes, which is why patients/payers reimburse you for your care.

What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

I have to think you're being intentionally obtuse if you can't imagine why folks would be interested in this.

 

[oncology2020]

Sometimes I visit this website to feel morally superior to the people who post on it... you guys don't disappoint.

I'm all for morality but need to realize you have to protect your turf and own interests at times as well. There is currently a sustained campaign going on to transfer money from the hands of physicians to all other collectively more powerful stakeholders. Often moral arguments are used as the justitification for such theft.

-"Let's keep increasing the years and rigor of training for these indentured servants in the name of patient care and learning"
-"Let's keep increasing the number of trainees in pathology, radiology, rad onc, cardiology, etc without any regard for the job market and the effect that has on driving down salaries and forcing trainees to take on year(s) of additional fellowships (i.e. cheap labor) in the name of patient care and learning"..Rad onc has invented unaccredited utterly useless fellowships to continue having a supply of cheap labor in the name of patient care and training
-"Let's decrease the salary of physicians because they're making too much in the name of patient care and transfer that revenue to CEOs, pharma, medical device industry, insurance industry all of which are recording historic profits and make up a huge portion of the Fortune 500"

Time to speak up kiddo otherwise you're going to get eaten alive in the real world if give others that opportunity

 

[oncology2020]

Why shouldn't the public get to know who is getting paid on the side, in medicine, politics, or anything else? Almost anytime one group is paying another group or person, there is an always a risk for conflict of interest.

I think these things should be out in the open so that consumers can make informed decisions. Wouldn't you want to know how much your physician was paid by a pharmaceutical company, especially if that was a large amount. Last time I checked no one gives away free money without expecting something in return.

Yes but the problem is no other field gets scrutinized as much as physicians do. I'd argue government officials are in a much greater position of power that can have implications world wide..I'm all for transparency and morality but the scrutiny they impose on us should first start with them.

 

[mcloaf]

I'm all for morality but need to realize you have to protect your turf and own interests at times as well. There is currently a sustained campaign going on to transfer money from the hands of physicians to all other collectively more powerful stakeholders. Often moral arguments are used as the justitification for such theft.

-"Let's keep increasing the years and rigor of training for these indentured servants in the name of patient care and learning"
-"Let's keep increasing the number of trainees in pathology, radiology, rad onc, cardiology, etc without any regard for the job market and the effect that has on driving down salaries and forcing trainees to take on year(s) of additional fellowships in the name of patient care and learning"..Rad onc has invented unaccredited utterly useless fellowships to continue having a supply of cheap labor in the name of patient care and training
-"Let's decrease the salary of physicians because they're making too much in the name of patient care and transfer that revenue to CEOs, pharma, medical device industry, insurance industry all of which are recording historic profits and make up a huge portion of the Fortune 500"

Time to speak up kiddo otherwise you're going to get eaten alive in the real world if give others that opportunity

Yes but the problem is no other field gets scrutinized as much as physicians do. I'd argue government officials are in a much greater position of power that can have implications world wide..I'm all for transparency and morality but the scrutiny they impose on us should first start with them.

These are deflections.

 

[mimelim]

If people work, they got to get paid... What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

I don't have a definitive way of proving it, but if you took all the trainees in the US on open payments and sorted by amount of money they got from industry in 2014 and 2015, I would likely be in the top 10 both years. I wouldn't be surprised if I was at the top either to be honest. Product of the field that I'm in (heavily device centric), program that I'm at (little to no regulation outside of the law and we run a lot of clinical trials) and my most of my travel for research being industry supported. Now, none of these are cash payments to me, they are reimbursements for things that I do, so it is a tad different from practicing faculty that are on there. So, that having been said...

#1 If you can't understand why people want to know this, you are beyond hope. It is beyond dispute that money influences decisions. The degree is up for debate, but that the bias exists?

#2 There are countless stories of physicians abusing their positions for financial gain at the expense of patient safety/health. Some are well publicized, others, you just simply see. In the community/private realm, it is left and right. Maybe most students and academics don't see it, but where the vast majority of physicians practice? If you don't see it, you aren't looking hard enough. I don't think that physicians are any worse than the average person, but by the same token, I don't think they are better either. If they see an opportunity for personal gain and the ability to get away with it, more often than not, they will take it.

#3 The sunshine act isn't perfect, but it is a step designed to counter a very real problem in medicine. I don't have a better system. Do you?

#4 I have never heard of patients actually looking up their physicians on this and even if they did, would it change anything? I think in some egregious cases it might and I personally see that as a good thing and if someone is doing something way outside the standard of care using a particular product, I think that it is beneficial for people to know that they are getting paid by that company. I have a hard time imagining this affecting physicians going about their normal clinical practice, even if they are getting 50-100k+/year.

 

[Goro]

con·flict of in·ter·est
noun
noun: conflict of interest; plural noun: conflicts of interest

1. a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.
   "the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists"
   • a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.
     "Watson quit his job after questions about a possible conflict of interest"

brib·er·y
ˈbrīb(ə)rē/graft, payola, corruption, subornation; More
informalpalm-greasing, hush money
"he could use bribery, blackmail, and other forms

If you wish to have a real life example, see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...s-say-fat-NOT-sugar-caused-heart-disease.html

If people work, they got to get paid... What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

 

[ParallelLines]

Wait a second, I thought kickbacks from pharm were illegal and the most that a physician can accept are free lunches?

 

[Taddy Mason]

Wait a second, I thought kickbacks from pharm were illegal and the most that a physician can accept are free lunches?

Meals, travel costs for "meetings", stock, etc. are all legal as long as all of the proper paperwork is filled out, t-s are crossed, and lower case........j-s are dotted. Kickbacks still happen very regularly. Now there are just more hurdles and subtlety.

 

[deleted393595]

If people work, they got to get paid... What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

Honestly, the public doesn't care. It's just a push being done by a bunch of dishonest leftists/progressives (aka cancer)

 

[OrdinaryDO]

Even government officials don't have to disclose where they the get their money..the same officials who imposed those strict regulations on us...

Government Officials DO have to disclose money they recieve from Lobbyists...which is the medical equivalence to pharmaceutical companies paying physicians. There are rules and strict guidlines to keep this in check, al la. the Anti-Kickback Statute. Physicians have a conflict of interest by taking money from Big Pharma, so people should get to see that information.

 

[mimelim]

Honestly, the public doesn't care. It's just a push being done by a bunch of dishonest leftists/progressives (aka cancer)

Funny, the Sunshine act was originally proposed by Grassley who is a Republican. Someone who it would be pretty damn hard to label as a progressive. Personally, the only people that I've found that have a problem with it overall are dishonest people, regardless of political affiliation and the drug/device companies.

Further, it only applies to people receiving payments from the government. It hardly seems unreasonable for the US government to have a vested interest when they are footing the bill for the care.

 

[mcloaf]

Honestly, the public doesn't care. It's just a push being done by a bunch of dishonest leftists/progressives (aka cancer)

Do you have any actual facts or arguments to offer? If people wanted this level of analysis they could read facebook comments on TheBlaze.

 

[Raryn]

I don't have a definitive way of proving it, but if you took all the trainees in the US on open payments and sorted by amount of money they got from industry in 2014 and 2015, I would likely be in the top 10 both years. I wouldn't be surprised if I was at the top either to be honest. Product of the field that I'm in (heavily device centric), program that I'm at (little to no regulation outside of the law and we run a lot of clinical trials) and my most of my travel for research being industry supported. Now, none of these are cash payments to me, they are reimbursements for things that I do, so it is a tad different from practicing faculty that are on there. So, that having been said...

#1 If you can't understand why people want to know this, you are beyond hope. It is beyond dispute that money influences decisions. The degree is up for debate, but that the bias exists?

#2 There are countless stories of physicians abusing their positions for financial gain at the expense of patient safety/health. Some are well publicized, others, you just simply see. In the community/private realm, it is left and right. Maybe most students and academics don't see it, but where the vast majority of physicians practice? If you don't see it, you aren't looking hard enough. I don't think that physicians are any worse than the average person, but by the same token, I don't think they are better either. If they see an opportunity for personal gain and the ability to get away with it, more often than not, they will take it.

#3 The sunshine act isn't perfect, but it is a step designed to counter a very real problem in medicine. I don't have a better system. Do you?

#4 I have never heard of patients actually looking up their physicians on this and even if they did, would it change anything? I think in some egregious cases it might and I personally see that as a good thing and if someone is doing something way outside the standard of care using a particular product, I think that it is beneficial for people to know that they are getting paid by that company. I have a hard time imagining this affecting physicians going about their normal clinical practice, even if they are getting 50-100k+/year.

Last I checked, residents/fellows are exempt from being reported through the sunshine act. As in, there shouldn't be much data on trainees up there, at least not comprehensively.

Wait a second, I thought kickbacks from pharm were illegal and the most that a physician can accept are free lunches?

Kickbacks (paying physicians directly for prescribing) are explicitly illegal. Lunches/dinners are not. Swag (pens and whatnot) has been semi-voluntarily discontinued since 2009.

But doing things like paying physicians to give lectures or perform research is not illegal. There's many physicians that make an extra few dollars on the side by giving lectures at drug rep dinners, and that's the sort of thing typically reported.

 

[mimelim]

Last I checked, residents/fellows are exempt from being reported through the sunshine act. As in, there shouldn't be much data on trainees up there, at least not comprehensively.



Kickbacks (paying physicians directly for prescribing) are explicitly illegal. Lunches/dinners are not. Swag (pens and whatnot) has been semi-voluntarily discontinued since 2009.

But doing things like paying physicians to give lectures or perform research is not illegal. There's many physicians that make an extra few dollars on the side by giving lectures at drug rep dinners, and that's the sort of thing typically reported.

The Sunshine act does not require companies to report residents/fellows. However, it is standard practice for companies to do so in specialties and areas where there is a lot of interaction (device heavy fields). The companies gain little to nothing for not keeping track and it becomes an organizational nightmare if you have to keep dividing who you have to report and who you don't, so they just report it all. The penalties are high enough to dissuade them from pushing the boundaries at all.

 

[caffeinemia]

I don't have a definitive way of proving it, but if you took all the trainees in the US on open payments and sorted by amount of money they got from industry in 2014 and 2015, I would likely be in the top 10 both years. I wouldn't be surprised if I was at the top either to be honest. Product of the field that I'm in (heavily device centric), program that I'm at (little to no regulation outside of the law and we run a lot of clinical trials) and my most of my travel for research being industry supported. Now, none of these are cash payments to me, they are reimbursements for things that I do, so it is a tad different from practicing faculty that are on there. So, that having been said...

#1 If you can't understand why people want to know this, you are beyond hope. It is beyond dispute that money influences decisions. The degree is up for debate, but that the bias exists?

#2 There are countless stories of physicians abusing their positions for financial gain at the expense of patient safety/health. Some are well publicized, others, you just simply see. In the community/private realm, it is left and right. Maybe most students and academics don't see it, but where the vast majority of physicians practice? If you don't see it, you aren't looking hard enough. I don't think that physicians are any worse than the average person, but by the same token, I don't think they are better either. If they see an opportunity for personal gain and the ability to get away with it, more often than not, they will take it.

#3 The sunshine act isn't perfect, but it is a step designed to counter a very real problem in medicine. I don't have a better system. Do you?

#4 I have never heard of patients actually looking up their physicians on this and even if they did, would it change anything? I think in some egregious cases it might and I personally see that as a good thing and if someone is doing something way outside the standard of care using a particular product, I think that it is beneficial for people to know that they are getting paid by that company. I have a hard time imagining this affecting physicians going about their normal clinical practice, even if they are getting 50-100k+/year.

Being an industry consultant is almost seen as a positive thing in my discipline. Means you make enough of an impact in the field for people to want your influence.

 

[mimelim]

Being an industry consultant is almost seen as a positive thing in my discipline. Means you make enough of an impact in the field for people to want your influence.

I certainly don't see it as a negative that physicians have relationships with industry.

 

[Psai]

Being an industry consultant is almost seen as a positive thing in my discipline. Means you make enough of an impact in the field for people to want your influence.

They give free crap to you and free sample medications for your patients who need it. What's not to like?

 

[Spectre of Ockham]

IDK because Dr. Oz made a mess of medical integrity ? To avoid hidden Ozes ?

 

[Montisumo]

If people work, they got to get paid... What's the purpose of that website where you can check if physicians receive payment from big pharma?

Its called "conflict of interest". Same reason why people are concerned about the White House promoting Ivanka Trump's merchandise.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Same reason there is a financial disclosure section on literally every research paper that gets published. Accountability.

 

[W19]

Its called "conflict of interest". Same reason why people are concerned about the White House promoting Ivanka Trump's merchandise.

These so-called 'conflict of interests' don't apply to PA, NP?

 

[Taddy Mason]

These so-called 'conflict of interests' don't apply to PA, NP?

They do. There was a full FDA audit (I garuantee you its something no one aspires to be involved with) at my research gig prior to med school due to a PA misleading his financial conflicts on interest on paper. 2 NPs were removed from all research projects for concerns of similar issues shortly following.

 

[mcloaf]

These so-called 'conflict of interests' don't apply to PA, NP?

Maybe rather than changing the subject, you could offer a substantive argument for why you think physicians receiving undisclosed benefits from industry might be a positive thing.

That would be a much more interesting discourse than finger pointing at other fields and professions as if the misdeeds of others let us off the hook.

 

[deleted393595]

Funny, the Sunshine act was originally proposed by Grassley who is a Republican. Someone who it would be pretty damn hard to label as a progressive. Personally, the only people that I've found that have a problem with it overall are dishonest people, regardless of political affiliation and the drug/device companies.

Further, it only applies to people receiving payments from the government. It hardly seems unreasonable for the US government to have a vested interest when they are footing the bill for the care.

1) And Republicans can't also be Socialists in favor of big government? Controlling the movement of people, fighting for trade protectionism, and mass surveillance are Socialist positions. Bernie and Trump are both socialists after all: One is a "democratic" socialist, the other is a nationalist socialist. Honestly, I don't understand why Progressives hate Trump. He's frankly more to the left than Hillary: Like Bernie, he's against immigration and is for trade protectionism. He's also pro-LGBT and favors government having a large role in healthcare and running the economy.

2) Medicare and Medicaid both crowded out other healthcare alternatives catering to the poor and the elderly because people would rather accept "free" care from government. With all other alternative sources of income eliminated, most physicians had to participate in those government programs. It's similar to how Bismark created national health insurance in Germany to crowd-out alternatives created by worker unions and altruistic societies in order to bind their loyalty to the State. Both Medicare and Medicaid were intended to be the first steps towards nationalized health insurance in the US, and have been used to similarly control and coerce physicians into obedience. Physicians have little alternative but to be part of Medicare/Medicaid and have the privacy of their relations revealed.


The AMA honestly should have listened to its advice from the 1950s, and fought against Medicare and Medicaid. Both of those awful programs hurt patients and are unaffordable. Both should be repealed entirely.

Personally, the only people that I've found that have a problem with it overall are dishonest people, regardless of political affiliation and the drug/device companies

3) Fear not our Revolution, komrade!!! Only the guilty ones go to Gulag!

Fear not the mass surveillance of the NSA, fellow citizen! Only dishonest terrorists who have something to hide are afraid of it!

Also, the same leftists at the NYT and Politico and other fine establishments, who attacked physicians for all of these years and wrote of the need for the Sunshine Act did definitely not receive kickback offers (tit-for-tat grades, offers of positions in the White House, etc.) from the Democrat establishment at all right?

IDK because Dr. Oz made a mess of medical integrity ? To avoid hidden Ozes ?

And we need the government to tell us that Dr. Oz is a sham?

 

[mimelim]

1) And Republicans can't also be Socialists in favor of big government? Controlling the movement of people, fighting for trade protectionism, and mass surveillance are Socialist positions. Bernie and Trump are both socialists after all: One is a "democratic" socialist, the other is a nationalist socialist. Honestly, I don't understand why Progressives hate Trump. He's frankly more to the left than Hillary: Like Bernie, he's against immigration and is for trade protectionism. He's also pro-LGBT and favors government having a large role in healthcare and running the economy.

2) Medicare and Medicaid both crowded out other healthcare alternatives catering to the poor and the elderly because people would rather accept "free" care from government. With all other alternative sources of income eliminated, most physicians had to participate in those government programs. It's similar to how Bismark created national health insurance in Germany to crowd-out alternatives created by worker unions and altruistic societies in order to bind their loyalty to the State. Both Medicare and Medicaid were intended to be the first steps towards nationalized health insurance in the US, and have been used to similarly control and coerce physicians into obedience. Physicians have little alternative but to be part of Medicare/Medicaid and have the privacy of their relations revealed.


The AMA honestly should have listened to its advice from the 1950s, and fought against Medicare and Medicaid. Both of those awful programs hurt patients and are unaffordable. Both should be repealed entirely.



3) Fear not our Revolution, komrade!!! Only the guilty ones go to Gulag!

Fear not the mass surveillance of the NSA, fellow citizen! Only dishonest terrorists who have something to hide are afraid of it!



And we need the government to tell us that Dr. Oz is a sham?

I have no idea what the **** you wrote here or how you thought it related to anything that I posted, unless you meant to quote someone else. But, by all means keep arguing with nobody.

 

[medtech2MD]

A doctor explaining why this issue is so important through the lens of a patient, her own mother. Summary included incase you don't choose to watch, OP

 

[deleted393595]

I have no idea what the **** you wrote here or how you thought it related to anything that I posted, unless you meant to quote someone else. But, by all means keep arguing with nobody.

Guess you missed the line: "Physicians have little alternative but to be part of Medicare/Medicaid and have the privacy of their relations revealed."

To clarify, let me break this down for you:

1) Federal healthcare programs (Medicare/Medicaid) crowd out other alternatives in the 1960s offering care to the indigent and elderly. Private charity and low-payment care disappear.
2) Physicians end up participating in federal healthcare programs since private sector alternatives no longer exist.
3) Federal healthcare programs start dictating terms to physicians. Physicians have no alternative but to obey them since there are no other market alternatives.
4) Many of these dictates (such as mandatory disclosure) are often intrusive and serve to break the will of the medical profession. If you reference AMA literature from the 1910s and 1920s, you'll be surprised by just how anti-government physicians back then were. Over multiple generations, the idea of the government having a role in healthcare has become increasingly normalized among physicians, which can be credited to the continued push by progressives and the left's victory in the culture war.


EDIT: I'm not against the principle of disclosure (I'd personally chose to never disclose). If physicians chose to do so, it should be a voluntary decision.

 

[Taddy Mason]

At least @ElCapone was able to provide some insight as to the "quality" of his writing.

 

[Montisumo]

These so-called 'conflict of interests' don't apply to PA, NP?

Coi is a big deal for any Healthcare professional, however, PAs and NPs aren't as attractive thought leaders as MDs, so generally speaking, MDs are the target of pharma bc MDs are higher up on the power/influence chain.