In yet another example of how when you seek a "seat at the table" in Washington politicians take it as a sign that you can't stand on your own two feet or you would be willing to lie under the next bus they throw you under ...
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/02/23/prsa0223.htm
"Sunshine" bill sets $100 trigger for disclosing drug industry pay to doctors
Note that none of these disclosure or conflict of interest policies or limits on marketing announced by academic health systems restrict the ability of academic health systems to uh..market to the public, pay doctors out of central funds, receive and transfer money from insurance companies, hospitals, the for-profit arms of the health systems themselves, the lobbying or law firms that might retain the physicians from the academic health systems for expert legal work. Oh no. That exemption is about a wide as the part on Senator Grassley's scalp.
And since we have no regard for the civil liberties of physicians and their family members...."The bill also would require drug companies or device makers that are not publicly traded to disclose any ownership interest held by physicians or their immediate family members. " Does that mean if Dr. Berkowitz invests his son's Bar Mitzvah money in a hedge fund that also holds a position in a start up seeking to cure cancer that it is the responsibility of the start up to track down that investment?
Some university health systems have gone to idiotic lengths to prove to Grassley how pure they are..."University of Iowa Health Care, a 1,420-physician health system, also announced a stricter financial-conflict plan in January. Among other things, the new policy bars faculty, staff and trainees from seeking, accepting or giving patients product samples under the theory that the free drugs improperly influence prescribing habits." Nice theory. But is it true? And what if samples allow doctors to monitor if patients actually respond well to drugs without burdening patients with out of pocket costs? Doesn't that improperly influence prescribing habits? Since co-pays seem to drive down compliance in many cases isn't this policy harmful to patient health in order to appease Grassley? And meanwhile it hasn't stopped UI from boosting the amount of dough it spends marketing itself to the various insurance providers in the area.
In any event, I agree with Senator Grassley tha "Shedding light on industry payments to physicians would be good for the system. Transparency fosters accountability, and the public has a right to know about financial relationships." So with that, the Sunshine Act should be amended to include any payment to physicians and any financial relationships in the health care industry. That includes when foundations and law firms pay physicians to travel to cushy locations to pontificate about drug and devicemaker influence in Bermuda and when the same pay doctors to conduct studies, publish reports and hold conferences. That includes when doctors are paid as expert witnesses and or receive any sort of gift, food, compensation of any value over $100 to advise, consult on policy or legal matter. That includes when academic health centers and hospitals pay for CME curriculum, as well as travel, food and lodging. That includes any time a physician is paid to conduct research, participate on a panel or advice a government agency, insurance company, benefit manager, HMO, etc that can influence a cilnical decision, guideline development, etc. And why stop at $100. Why not $50 or $25? Why stop at doctors? Why not nurse practitioners, pharmacists, home health workers, infusion specialist, lab technicians?
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/02/23/prsa0223.htm
"Sunshine" bill sets $100 trigger for disclosing drug industry pay to doctors
The proposal would let states regulate such income even further. Reflecting a growing trend, two universities and a specialist group announce new conflict-of-interest policies.
"Physicians who receive $100 or more from drugmakers or device manufacturers over the course of a year would have those payments posted to the Web under bipartisan Senate legislation introduced in January.The new bill is stricter than a version of the measure circulated last year that received support from industry and organized medicine groups, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association.
The reintroduced legislation, known as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, came amid another round of disclosure and conflict-of-interest policies announced by doctors and academic health systems."Note that none of these disclosure or conflict of interest policies or limits on marketing announced by academic health systems restrict the ability of academic health systems to uh..market to the public, pay doctors out of central funds, receive and transfer money from insurance companies, hospitals, the for-profit arms of the health systems themselves, the lobbying or law firms that might retain the physicians from the academic health systems for expert legal work. Oh no. That exemption is about a wide as the part on Senator Grassley's scalp.
And since we have no regard for the civil liberties of physicians and their family members...."The bill also would require drug companies or device makers that are not publicly traded to disclose any ownership interest held by physicians or their immediate family members. " Does that mean if Dr. Berkowitz invests his son's Bar Mitzvah money in a hedge fund that also holds a position in a start up seeking to cure cancer that it is the responsibility of the start up to track down that investment?
Some university health systems have gone to idiotic lengths to prove to Grassley how pure they are..."University of Iowa Health Care, a 1,420-physician health system, also announced a stricter financial-conflict plan in January. Among other things, the new policy bars faculty, staff and trainees from seeking, accepting or giving patients product samples under the theory that the free drugs improperly influence prescribing habits." Nice theory. But is it true? And what if samples allow doctors to monitor if patients actually respond well to drugs without burdening patients with out of pocket costs? Doesn't that improperly influence prescribing habits? Since co-pays seem to drive down compliance in many cases isn't this policy harmful to patient health in order to appease Grassley? And meanwhile it hasn't stopped UI from boosting the amount of dough it spends marketing itself to the various insurance providers in the area.
In any event, I agree with Senator Grassley tha "Shedding light on industry payments to physicians would be good for the system. Transparency fosters accountability, and the public has a right to know about financial relationships." So with that, the Sunshine Act should be amended to include any payment to physicians and any financial relationships in the health care industry. That includes when foundations and law firms pay physicians to travel to cushy locations to pontificate about drug and devicemaker influence in Bermuda and when the same pay doctors to conduct studies, publish reports and hold conferences. That includes when doctors are paid as expert witnesses and or receive any sort of gift, food, compensation of any value over $100 to advise, consult on policy or legal matter. That includes when academic health centers and hospitals pay for CME curriculum, as well as travel, food and lodging. That includes any time a physician is paid to conduct research, participate on a panel or advice a government agency, insurance company, benefit manager, HMO, etc that can influence a cilnical decision, guideline development, etc. And why stop at $100. Why not $50 or $25? Why stop at doctors? Why not nurse practitioners, pharmacists, home health workers, infusion specialist, lab technicians?
