On banning gifts from pharma companies to doctors, Ways and Means Chair Bob DeLeo may hurt himself with all that head scratching and hand-wringing:
“I’ve heard from a lot of folks on that,” he said. “That would be by far, I think, the largest single item in that bill that’s getting a lot of attention.
… I’ve been talking to some folks who have already come in to express support, you know, opposition, and everything in between on it, so we’re taking a look at that now.”
Well who knows, some people are for it, some are against, everyone's got opinions, you know?
It isn't that hard. The gifts are unethical legal bribes. They have absolutely nothing to do with medicine, and everything to do with getting docs to prescribe their meds, whether patients need them or not. And that cozy relationship leads to bad care and wasted money.
And as a policy issue, it really is a matter of to whom the government belongs. Does it belong to consumers? Or to special interests who can afford lobbyists and insider heavy-handedness? Do you protect patients, or do they need to make contributions so that that the lege can decide it on the merits? Do we cave in to empty threats, or stand up for ourselves?
Come on, Chairman DeLeo, be our hero.
I’m sure the Docs are always talking about high-level scientific/medical issues with the Pharma sales reps… who gained lots of expertise in this when they were college cheerleaders, minor league baseball players and in the military.
Why the need for that gratuitous insult?
<
p>This is evidience that this particular proposal is rooted in corporophobia: that affliction of people who run shrieking from the room at the sight of a scary, evil corporation.
Glad to hear it, and I look forward to seeing such copious evidence. Please do disabuse us, so we can move on to more important things.
The premise behind this dopey proposal is that health care providers and drug companies are farudulent enterprises giving out prescription meds to those who don’t need them.
<
p>And what is it that is so objectionable? That pharmaceuticals want to sell their products! I get the vapors just thinking about it.
giving meds to people who don’t need them, jacking up costs to everyone in the process. And there are very serious ethical issues involved in combining the business of selling drugs and the vocation of administering health care. I find it amazing you don’t even acknowledge that.
You ain’t never gonna screw the Hooter’s waitress. But you keep comin back becuase you think you.
<
p>Right Doctor?
Charley — just a quick question. Where do you stand on the nurse staffing bill that recently passed the House. I’ve seen some estimates that it could cost hospitals up to $1 billion to implement if it were to become law. Even if it’s only half that amount, it’s still substantially more than I believe we’ll save by banning gifts.
<
p>Just wondering if your zeal for cost containment extends to opposing a powerful union as well.
<
p>BTW — hope you buy all your own drinks in Denver in August. Wouldn’t want someone to accuse you of being “bribed” by anyone throwing a media party out there.
We never oppose powerful unions. Like the cops, the firemen (who opposed certain parts of the Municipal Partnership Act), the carmen (see cops link), the Teamsters, the municipal unions.
<
p>Show me some links to those estimates, and we’ll talk. The staffing issue could cut both ways: If more nurses are providing better care and avoiding expensive and should-have-been-unnecessary procedures, then you might end up saving money. But I don’t have an opinion on that yet.
<
p>Doctor’s should be making professional recommendations regarding “medications” without incentives. Pharma reps. are mere drug vendors and nothing more!
<
p>Lunch for the staff and trips for physicians are not helping patients. Sound recomendations do potentially assist patients!
<
p>Bob don’t get weak knees now!
<
p>Doesn’t Finneran work for the drug companies?
<
p>