Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    The Week

    Time for Big Pharma to disclose its payments to doctors?

    The feds plan to force drug makers to tell the public about the perks they offer health-care providers. What will it mean for patients?

    The Obama administration is preparing to require drug companies to disclose how much they pay doctors for everything from speaking engagements to travel. Some researchers suspect these perks can drive up health-care costs by encouraging doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs and medical devices. Advocates of the new rule, which is part of the president's sweeping health care reforms, say it will benefit patients by discouraging doctors from letting ties to drug makers influence treatment. But pharmaceutical industry executives say it will scare doctors from working with drug companies, potentially hurting health care as a result. What does the new requirement really mean for patients?

    Transparency could be a big help: "The changes could have big implications for those with developmental disabilities," says Shaun Heasley at Disability Scoop. Data suggests that Big Pharma's payments to doctors increase the number of physicians willing to prescribe powerful antipsychotic medications to children with various disabilities. Such treatment is risky, and the drugs often haven't been approved for these uses. Patient advocates will surely welcome the extra caution and scrutiny that transparency will bring.
    "Doctors' perks may soon be public knowledge"

    This isn't transparency. It's "liberal fascism": "The goal, of course, is laudable," says Samuel R. Staley at National Review. But the new rules, being part of the red-tape-heavy "ObamaCare," are being pursued in a way that opens "a door to future regulation of doctor-patient relationships." The information that will be posted online will taint even highly ethical doctors by suggesting their care is suspect. "And the government will ramp up staff to audit the information... Voila! Instant bureaucracy."
    "The face of Obamacare's incremental Liberal Fascism?"

    If anything, the new rules don't go far enough: "This new transparency will be good," says David Callahan at Policy Shop. "But what is still missing are tougher rules that govern what payments Big Pharma can make to doctors in the first place." As long as it remains legal for companies to dangle perks in front of caregivers, "the integrity of the medical profession will remain at risk."
    "Bribes we should know about: Big Pharma payoffs to doctors will be public"

    View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

    Other stories from this topic:

    Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

     

    28 comments

    • Constance  •  Detroit, Michigan  •  4 mths ago
      Why are there commercials for medications?????? if the doc thinks I need it, he will tell me!!!
      • JR-Texas 4 mths ago
        I don't buy any of the advertised prescription meds. The side effects ("...including death...") are worse than the condition they're supposed to treat.
      • Patrick F 4 mths ago
        JR - you got that right. Any antidepressant that carries a risk of suicide (meaning, all of them) is one you shouldn't take.

        And Constance - if the doc tells you you need it, does that mean you do? Or does he need it... so that the increses in scales can lift his stock price. Not all doctors do this, but more transparency is needed in the relationships between doctors and the companies whose medications they prescribe.
    • JR-Texas  •  4 mths ago
      The only people opposed to this plan would be the pharmacy companies and the crooked doctors who take money to prescribe their products. Those doctors, by the way, should be required to prominently post, in office waiting rooms, how much of these types of payments they receive and from which companies.
    • A Yahoo! User  •  4 mths ago
      In the recording industry, it's called "payola" and it's illegal. Why should the drug industry be governed differently?
    • Constance  •  Detroit, Michigan  •  4 mths ago
      This greediness is well overdue. Why are the docs promoting a new med everytime you go for a check-up? And why are meds cheaper in Canada? Why are they pulling otc's off the shelves at pharmacies that work. They have replaced a lot of otc's with meds that don't work....Where is my mylanta? I hear they pulled it off the market because of alcohol content. I guess alot of folks have been drunk on it for as long as I can remember.
      • A Yahoo! User 4 mths ago
        Mylanta coctails? Yuck!
    • Carlos  •  4 mths ago
      lobbying should be outlawed in our government....big-pharma shouldn't be allowed to court doctors either....simple math....which means its all about the money....
    • Tone  •  4 mths ago
      A small step in the right direction.
    • chris n  •  4 mths ago
      I would rather see how much money the politicians are getting.....Now with super pacs, we will never know.
      • Patrick F 4 mths ago
        I know: $0. Super PAC donations can't be given to candidates, nor can the Super PAC be coordinated by the candidate.
    • D'booger  •  4 mths ago
      Remove the lobbyists fees, doctor free-bees, advertising, outrageous bonuses, monopolistic practice then the price for drugs just may come down to an affordable level. But then you probably wouldn't need insurance but that's a no-no to the big insurance boyz so you can imagine nothing will ever be accomplished by the smoke screens that will be set up by the drug companies.
    • cocheta  •  4 mths ago
      Considering the number of times that a 'fashionable' drug has been recommended by one of my doctors without consideration of how it might affect my health or whether it was even the most effective for my physiology, I think this is a good thing. I learned to question my doctors the hard way....I was prescribed a medication that contained a chemical I was allergic to. As the information was listed in my records, I have to conclude that making money was at the root of the problem. Not only that, he lied to me when I asked if there was anything I needed to know about the medication before I took it.

      Thankfully, I had an observant pharmacist who caught it before filling the prescription. It's a sad statement on our medical care that someone has to double check what a doctor is doing.
      • tim 4 mths ago
        This all went to you-know-where when they started advertising these drugs on TV and in magazines.
    • Bucs fan  •  4 mths ago
      Cant wait to see what kind of spin Fox news puts on this
      • A Yahoo! User 4 mths ago
        RTFA. The National Review has already weighed in with a Fox-worthy rebuttal.
      • PB 4 mths ago
        I would too, but I never watch Faux News anymore.......
    • David  •  4 mths ago
      This would seem to me to be a complete no-brainer. We outlawed payola by the music establishment, we created the freedom of information act, we require our politicians to report perks, etc., yet we question something so egregiously illegal as Big Pharma keeping their form of payola on the sly? Huh? FULL TRANSPARENCY is a MUST. We're talking about people's lives here! If they get away with this, it will be nothing less than criminal. I know that sounds over the top, but the way out "government" allows exceptions to the rule at every turn, I have zero faith in them. Integrity be damned, I guess!
    • James  •  4 mths ago
      I would go a bit farther in yet another direction to get to the bottom of the true cost of drugs. Require that the companies deduct all the funds taxpayers gave them to develop a drug from the cost of the drug prior to marking it up to as they say == cover the cost of development. Most of the drugs on the market were paid for by the taxpayer not the companies.
    • Aviragus  •  Grand Rapids, Michigan  •  4 mths ago
      I don't care about free pens to doctors, I want to know what the pahrmaceutical companies are paying legislators and PACs.
    • oripunk3485  •  4 mths ago
      Hmm, who to believe? Consumer advocates or Big Pharma reps who want to keep paying doctors to push their products? This is a tough one...
    • aldo.  •  4 mths ago
      I wish another headline read, "Time for Big Corporations to disclose its payments to Congress".
    • tim  •  4 mths ago
      While we're at it, I'd love to know how many referrals for tests and procedures my doctor has to make each month as part of his employment by our hospital/clinic big corporation. I know it happens because other doctors have told me so. And our pharmacist in our little town of 7500 says she personally catches on average 8-10 potentially dangerous interactions in drugs prescribed by the same physician. Every time I go to the Dr. they have the wrong meds listed for me even though I correct them every time.
    • RA  •  Washington, District of Columbia  •  4 mths ago
      good luck on this one
    • Lorna R  •  4 mths ago
      I'm alive because of big pharma and my doctors.
    • Fletch  •  4 mths ago
      It is more then just Doctors and Drug companies, the inability of the Government Bureaucracy to detect or prevent fraud waste and abuse means that taxpayers pick up the tab for extra procedures and drugs that may not be necessary. The patient has no reason to care about the costs. $10,000 for a prostate exam? Does my insurance cover it? It does, ok then go for it....... But the real person taking it in the #$%$ is the tax payer if it is government funded, or the other insurance customers who pay for it in their growing rates.
    • stesh71  •  Richland, Michigan  •  4 mths ago
      How about we make Congress reveal what they use tax payer money for.