U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors
To head off medical conflicts of interest, the Obama administration is poised to require drug companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment.
Many researchers have found evidence that such payments can influence doctors treatment decisions and contribute to higher costs by encouraging the use of more expensive drugs and medical devices.
Consumer advocates and members of Congress say patients may benefit from the new standards, being issued by the government under the new health care law. Federal officials said the disclosures increased the likelihood that doctors would make decisions in the best interests of patients, without regard to the doctors financial interests.
Large numbers of doctors receive payments from drug and device companies every year sometimes into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in exchange for providing advice and giving lectures. Analyses by The New York Times and others have found that about a quarter of doctors take cash payments from drug or device makers and that nearly two-thirds accept routine gifts of food, including lunch for staff members and dinner for themselves.
full: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/health/policy/us-to-tell-drug-makers-to-disclose-payments-to-doctors.html?pagewanted=all
Stuart G
(38,445 posts)demosincebirth
(12,543 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)barack-obama-has-lost-my-vote crowd to remember
demosincebirth
(12,543 posts)throw tantrums like a bunch of spoiled brats because he hasn't addressed "their" issue.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Patient care has to come first. I don't believe people go into medicine with the intention of shilling for the drug companies, but after time, slowly the money has its influence.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Now we can say to the doctors, "Well, I said I wanted the damn generic, and since you're going to have to report payments from drug companies anyway, you may as well give it to me without a fight, because that way you won't look like you're in their pockets."
Then watch 'em squirm.
I know a guy who works for a pharmaceutical company. He's a fantastic bullshit artist. Every year, he gets the Top Sales awards, and he gets to take his whole family to the "company picnic"--which usually lasts a week or so, in places like Hawaii or on a cruise ship.
I often ask him how he can live with himself. He laughs and drives off in his high-end Mercedes.
eggplant
(3,913 posts)And regularly tosses all of their waiting-room "literature" into the trash. He shares office space with other practices that aren't so forthright, and does this as a public service.
AlecBGreen
(3,874 posts)Shake his hand for me next time I never understood drug commercials. "Ask your doctor about..." BULLSHIT! If you have a problem, tell your doctor about The Problem. They, being the professional, will point you in the right direction. Enough of this crap already.
meow2u3
(24,772 posts)... so they're too expensive for most people to afford without breaking the bank.
Next time you see those prescription drug ads on TV or in magazines, you might as well "ask your doctor how much kickback money the drug companies pay him to prescribe the drugs they advertise on TV, radio, and magazines."
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)flpab
(217 posts)they always complain about the food from the reps, they were all gaining weight. I know even my vet gets huge freebies from drug companies. I love how they take a class during their two week exotic trip and write the whole thing off on taxes. In my state the local news had a blurb about the amount of extra money certain doctors were making off drug companies. My Mom is on three blood pressure meds? Why?
drmeow
(5,024 posts)"US to force" - whole different emotional response than "US to require" even though both are accurate. And that is just rewording the existing title. Wouldn't it be novel if the headline read "New health care law will make drug company payments to MDs public"
Festivito
(13,452 posts)jkappy
(220 posts)quakerboy
(13,921 posts)I kinda like the headline, and the emotional response to it.
"To force" makes me think "this is happening, and its about time", where "to require" makes me think "or what, they get a firmly worded letter?", in a slightly sarcastic tone.
The complete rewrite is probably the most passive and least informative of them, in my opinion. It sounds neutral, but it seems to indicate that it will inherently release that info. But that is not the case, is it? The drug companies will have to disclose, and I doubt they will do it willingly, as they get a sweet deal off of the kickbacks they give Dr's. So they will have to be forced.
drmeow
(5,024 posts)who are more aware, more politically active, and more unhappy about the status quo, force in this context does not have the same connotations as people who have bought into the mindset that government is the problem and that government is dangerous. Those people see "force" and think "damn government with their boot on the neck of corporations." It also implies a "war" waged by the government. It is a very definite propaganda tool used to elicit a certain type of response in the majority of people.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)just1voice
(1,362 posts)to rid this country of the corrupt for-profit system. Nothing else even gets close to ending the corruption and never will.
midnight
(26,624 posts)babylonsister
(171,090 posts)Sgent
(5,857 posts)also make a lot more than either by doing ECT or VNS (electroshock), but that doesn't mean they do it on everyone who walks through their door.
Hotler
(11,445 posts)I couldn't find the sarcasm thingy. I hope this goes through and pisses the drug Co's off.
TBF
(32,090 posts)while it's a positive thing, it is not the long-term solution. We need single-payer health care in this country.
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)Make of it what you will.
Islandlife
(212 posts)Let's see it all.
babylonsister
(171,090 posts)view this as good news. iirc, the initial healthcare law had lots of things that would happen after it initially passed. This is one of them hopefully, and the fact that it wasn't dusted under a rug and is front and center has to count for something.
I REFUSE to be so negative, and view this as good news. So THERE!
zaj
(3,433 posts)I've always been a little confused by Payloa laws preventing. Even more so given that it's perfectly legal for Pharma companies to pay Dr's to promote their drugs, but it's illegal for record companies to do the same for their songs.
glinda
(14,807 posts)cpamomfromtexas
(1,247 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts).... by absolutely adorable pharmaceutical salesmen and women?
Will it include the "education" sessions that Big Pharma conducts for physicians in "therapeutic indicators" for the latest drug? Sessions conducted at upscale resorts with 30 minutes of education followed by golf, feasting and entertainment galore? Will those be reported?
The abuses in this industry are not only many and varied, they are dangerous.
duhneece
(4,117 posts)Irishonly
(3,344 posts)I stayed in the waiting room and got an education from a couple of reps for a pharmacutical couple. I don't think they knew I was listening. Their job was to push certain drugs from their supplier or whatever you call them. Even though they had multiple suppliers they were told to push certain drugs rather than others that would do the same thing. Corruption rules.