Re: Re: NY Times article- payments to doctors from drug companies

[Guest guest]

Listmates

This is bigger than just about this article. The waters are dirtier than most of us realize. We can call it by any name or labels. It will take a lot more people to get behind this problem.

Most are busy trying to make a living. We VOTE for the representatives to do to watch and do our bidding. (? ) The only time they want to hear from you is at vote time. Otherwise just pay your taxes and shut up.

This is one of the reason the green party was formed. It goes at one angle of the problems. ever notice how the news media keeps out any news about off beat candidates? Its a two party system and the media can manipulate two easier than three, four or more. But does the average voter know who they vote for --They hope not.

Look at who owns which media that you watch. It goes up to the top and who are they? You know the locals but who tells them what to report.

Public Citizen reported on PBS that today, many people because of they health benefits and afraid to loose the benefits, so don't want to get involved --trapped --

They sounded very good. Told how NAFTA has down graded the U.S. citizen

Now because of NAFTA and CAFTA now only 10% of the meat coming into the US from China etc. is to be inspected. Hands off deal. It get an AUTOMATIC FDA stamp.

Does that sound right? But it happens.

How the school system has went down hill. We used to be No. 1 , now about No. 25 sure don't make one feel good.

So I joined Public Citizen to find out what they were about. All I found so far --------- they want donations. [shut up and donate]

In IL we have CUB Citizens Utility Board (to fight? utility high rates) really, I think it means Corporate Utility Board. But most of citizens don't know. Every time we get a notice to renew our auto license plates we get a envelope to donate to CUB -Somehow there is a law that requires this CUB donation request.

Where do you start? At the local there are money and favors done for the insider group. At the state level the same. Do you start and get on inside and work out or work from outside in.?

The politics of each group differs. That is why this payoff etc can exist. This is what the politicians work on. The rascals.

The book "When Corporations Rule the World" endorsed by many, over 35 people names. An Activist, Financial Times etc. pub 2001 has not changed anything?

"What an astounding thing it is to watch a civilization destroy itself because it is unable to re-examine the validity under totally new circumstances of an economic ideology"

Sir Goldsmith, Times 1994

This country is becoming more diverse than ever before. That is what keeps big pharma happy. For example I about fell through the floor the other day. This fellow told me of a person in Colo that got a 3 month supply of some type arthritis shots. Those 3 months?? $11,000.00 (eleven thousand) It just seems criminal. The Ins pays it and the big circle continues.The ave person could not pay that amount. The person can not really tell the shots help.

With in each group is the politics. The drug companies hire the drug reps. It becomes job security politics. Same as your job. They either do the job or they get fired. And they probably have a line waiting for the job. Some of these reps don't last long because of what they are required to do. Within a union there is a small group that run it. All other are fenced to outside.

60 minutes and Dateline etc has been reporting on these problems, for how many years? What effect has they had. They know what they can report on and where it will go.

Smile

You are being had every day-------Haven't solved a thing

It is just one of my rants-----A -DMN (Don't Mean Nothing)

Dudley

RE: Re: NY Times article- payments to doctors from drug companies

Steve,

No one is advocating unaccountability. My point is that it’s part of a bigger, sicker system than most people realize. Let’s understand exactly what dollars are changing hands and for what services rendered. Let’s keep ourselves from scapegoating physicians or pharmaceutical companies when the entire healthcare system is rife with payoffs, trade-offs and inflated charges. A sick system is better than no system, and probably better than a government-run system, but who knows? Maybe we would have better care with socialized medicine – more access, lower costs, better technology, better medicines. Anyone out there from Canada or the UK like to jump in here?

Jill

From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of Steve MichenerSent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:08 PMTo: braintrainer Subject: Re: NY Times article- payments to doctors from drug companies

Jill,Yes, the sleazy activities and payoffs of the pharmaceutical companiesare indeed concealed by "muddy water". So why not work to clean thingsup a bit and keep our point of views intact, instead of giving up onthem. Third party payors or not, there can still be accountability andthe fact that payola is changing hands can be revealed.- Steve> >> > You know, it's easy to think that the issue is so absolute. The> fact is that mental health is poorly reimbursed by both state and> national agencies (Medicare/Medicaid)-. In many cases, it costs more> to provide the service for those clients than is reimbursed when you> consider the overhead and malpractice liability insurance, no-shows,> etc. Of course, the private-payors and private insurors take up the> slack in order to keep our mental health professionals in business. > Many psychiatrists "moonlight" from their private practices to provide> services for schools, halfway houses, etc. to augment their income. > It's easy to see why they may wish to act as a medical expert to give> inservices and lectures to other physicians. For this service of> course they are recompensed. They take time out of their offices and> away from their families and homes.> > Now, if you were a psychiatrist attending a local/regional> lecture on ADD/ADHD, given by a child psychiatrist who has had> extensive clinical experience in treating all degrees of attention> disorders, you'd want an expert teaching you - someone who'd seen the> gamut of adverse reactions, improvement/-decline, etc and had hundreds> (maybe thousands) of cases under his clinical belt. The most commonly> accepted means of treating these kids is pharmaceuticals (I'm not> saying the best, please understand). So, your expert had better be> very familiar with the pros and cons of those meds. The extent to> which he advocates the use of the particular product offered by any> company is a matter of his/her ethical standards. In my experience,> physicians tend to err on the side of being non-biased in public. If> they speak about stimulants, they speak about all the stimulants, not> just one. I've never heard them slam any company's product unless> it's totally outdated and been surpassed by products with greater> clinical benefit. What they say on the side, after the lecture, etc.> tends to be more informal, but they are usually very professional. > > So, who benefits from this process? Certainly the people> listening to the lecture. Certainly the physician who is offering his> experience as a clinical expert. Certainly the pharmaceutical company> to the extent that those who are listening will tend to prescribe that> produce more, thus increasing sales. > > For this benefit, who picks up the tab? The participants are> not usually willing to spend much at a local/regional level - they> save their money for the big national conferences. But, the> conference facility and restaurant and the expert physician all need> to be paid. Usually the expert physician has a plane fare and hotel> to be paid as well as the honorarium. > > So, when we look at total expenditures by pharmaceutical> companies on marketing in this way, let's please consider that there> is considerable benefit to the local practitioner in terms of the> sharing of information and support between physicians and experts. > Many local practitioners will never see 1000 cases of ADHD, especially> if they're doing primary care. > > Let's also remember that the FDA has recently (2006?) 'cracked> down' on the amount that pharmaceutical companies can pay for an> office luncheon (e.g.) with an expert physician. They must list who> attended and their licensure, and the 'reps' are rigorously> scrutinized about it. There are FDA regulations that companies must> meet in order to market their products in this way. I'm not> suggesting that we can eliminate public scrutiny, but let's realize> this is a system that may seem outrageously unfair at first, but has> some benefits to the practitioner and therefore to the client.> > IMHO, the funding of the FDA by pharmaceutical companies> themselves is a much bigger and more crucial issue.> > > > Jill Ripley, MN, RN> > > >