Princess Health and Georgia State Senator, Charged with Defrauding Hospital and Medical School, Convicted. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Georgia State Senator, Charged with Defrauding Hospital and Medical School, Convicted. Princessiccia

crime fraud Grady Memorial Hospital

Gusty 07:43 Add Comment

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Georgia State Senator Charles W Walker was convicted of 127 counts in a 137 count indictment. We had previously posted about the scope of the indictment, which included charges that Walker had defrauded both Grady Memorial Hospital, Georgia' largest public hospital, and the Medical College of Georgia in schemes to get these institutions to use personnel from Walker's temporary employment agency.

Princess Health and Georgia State Senator, Charged with Defrauding Hospital and Medical School, Convicted.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Georgia State Senator, Charged with Defrauding Hospital and Medical School, Convicted.Princessiccia

crime fraud Grady Memorial Hospital

Gusty 07:43 Add Comment

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Georgia State Senator Charles W Walker was convicted of 127 counts in a 137 count indictment. We had previously posted about the scope of the indictment, which included charges that Walker had defrauded both Grady Memorial Hospital, Georgia' largest public hospital, and the Medical College of Georgia in schemes to get these institutions to use personnel from Walker's temporary employment agency.

Princess Health and Opinions About the Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Opinions About the Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry. Princessiccia

marketing pharmaceuticals suppression of medical research

Gusty 07:12 Add Comment

Two major newspapers have published opinion pieces condemning current pharmaceutical industry practices, and calling for better regulation of the industry.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted how pharmaceutical companies promised to supply clinical trial data to a government sponsored web-site, but often provided data too limited to be meaningful. The editorial suggested "given the results so far, the next step would be to convert the voluntary government Web site to a national registry and threaten stiff financial penalties for companies that fail to comply."
The paper also published a response by Peter S Kim, President of Merck Research Laboratories, who said "given its track record of publishing data, the implication that Merck has hidden data is both unfair and inaccurate." He didn't address specific charges that Merck has hidden or manipulated data (for links to posts on these charges, see this.)
Meanwhile, an op-ed in the Denver Post stated "drug-making has become a very competitive industry, which may be putting profits before our health." Furthermore, it suggested that the US Food and Drug Administration is "too outdated, inadequate, and riddled with conflicts of interest to regulate the business of medical drugs." Instead, it proposed a new regulatory structure to ensure "that medical drugs would have to be safe for their intended use, that full information about potential harmful effects would be given to consumers and the medical community, and that harmed consumers would have the right to redress under exisiting product liability laws."
Clearly, there seems to be increasing sentiment for a renewal of the regulatory structure for the pharmaceutical industry. It may also be reasonable to suggest that other health care sectors, especially hospitals/ academic medical centers, and managed care organizations/ insurers, may be called upon to quickly clean up their acts, or also be subject to new and more rigorous regulation.

Princess Health and Opinions About the Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Opinions About the Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry.Princessiccia

marketing pharmaceuticals suppression of medical research

Gusty 07:12 Add Comment

Two major newspapers have published opinion pieces condemning current pharmaceutical industry practices, and calling for better regulation of the industry.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted how pharmaceutical companies promised to supply clinical trial data to a government sponsored web-site, but often provided data too limited to be meaningful. The editorial suggested "given the results so far, the next step would be to convert the voluntary government Web site to a national registry and threaten stiff financial penalties for companies that fail to comply."
The paper also published a response by Peter S Kim, President of Merck Research Laboratories, who said "given its track record of publishing data, the implication that Merck has hidden data is both unfair and inaccurate." He didn't address specific charges that Merck has hidden or manipulated data (for links to posts on these charges, see this.)
Meanwhile, an op-ed in the Denver Post stated "drug-making has become a very competitive industry, which may be putting profits before our health." Furthermore, it suggested that the US Food and Drug Administration is "too outdated, inadequate, and riddled with conflicts of interest to regulate the business of medical drugs." Instead, it proposed a new regulatory structure to ensure "that medical drugs would have to be safe for their intended use, that full information about potential harmful effects would be given to consumers and the medical community, and that harmed consumers would have the right to redress under exisiting product liability laws."
Clearly, there seems to be increasing sentiment for a renewal of the regulatory structure for the pharmaceutical industry. It may also be reasonable to suggest that other health care sectors, especially hospitals/ academic medical centers, and managed care organizations/ insurers, may be called upon to quickly clean up their acts, or also be subject to new and more rigorous regulation.

Princess Health and Secrecy. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Secrecy. Princessiccia

confidentiality clause health insurance secrecy

Gusty 06:43 Add Comment

I'm trying to catch up after a busy weekend, and there is a lot to catch up on...
Last week in the Hartford Courant, an op-ed article entitled "Medically Unnecessary" offered an ear, nose and throat surgeon's heart-felt complaints about the brave new world of practice dominated by managed care.
In particular, he recounted how his practice tried to negotiate with a prominent insurance company. As a prerequesite to negotiating, the company sent the doctors a "confidentiality contract," which included penalties up to $100,000 per person for any "breach of confidentiality, [decided] solely at the insurer's discretion." The doctors refused to sign.
Here is another example of the secrecy rampant in US health care. Earlier, we had posted about how hospitals keep their often stratospheric "list prices" secret, even from patients who may later be liable to pay these prices if they have no health insurer who can negotiate discounts. We also had posted about how medical schools and academic medical centers are often willing to negotiate research contracts with sponsors whose provisions are kept confidential, perhaps to hide provisions that give the corporate sponsor, not the ostensibly academic investigators control of most aspects of the research.
There are some instances in which secrecy in health care is justifiable. Keeping patients' personal data confidential is a a core value for most physicians. It also seems reasonable for companies that manufacture products used in health care to be able to maintain trade secrets about their manufacturing processes.
However, for the most part, we should cultivate transparency and openness in health care. It is hard to conceive of legitimate reasons to keep hospitals' prices, contracts between medical schools and research sponsors, and contracts between doctors and managed care organizations secret. On the other hand, it is easy to think of how such secrecy could hide unethical business practices, and potentially even abuse of patients and corruption.
It is time to end this secrecy.

Princess Health and Secrecy.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Secrecy.Princessiccia

confidentiality clause health insurance secrecy

Gusty 06:43 Add Comment

I'm trying to catch up after a busy weekend, and there is a lot to catch up on...
Last week in the Hartford Courant, an op-ed article entitled "Medically Unnecessary" offered an ear, nose and throat surgeon's heart-felt complaints about the brave new world of practice dominated by managed care.
In particular, he recounted how his practice tried to negotiate with a prominent insurance company. As a prerequesite to negotiating, the company sent the doctors a "confidentiality contract," which included penalties up to $100,000 per person for any "breach of confidentiality, [decided] solely at the insurer's discretion." The doctors refused to sign.
Here is another example of the secrecy rampant in US health care. Earlier, we had posted about how hospitals keep their often stratospheric "list prices" secret, even from patients who may later be liable to pay these prices if they have no health insurer who can negotiate discounts. We also had posted about how medical schools and academic medical centers are often willing to negotiate research contracts with sponsors whose provisions are kept confidential, perhaps to hide provisions that give the corporate sponsor, not the ostensibly academic investigators control of most aspects of the research.
There are some instances in which secrecy in health care is justifiable. Keeping patients' personal data confidential is a a core value for most physicians. It also seems reasonable for companies that manufacture products used in health care to be able to maintain trade secrets about their manufacturing processes.
However, for the most part, we should cultivate transparency and openness in health care. It is hard to conceive of legitimate reasons to keep hospitals' prices, contracts between medical schools and research sponsors, and contracts between doctors and managed care organizations secret. On the other hand, it is easy to think of how such secrecy could hide unethical business practices, and potentially even abuse of patients and corruption.
It is time to end this secrecy.

Princess Health and New Marketing Campaign "To Build Emotional Ties Between Merck and Consumers". Princessiccia

Princess Health and New Marketing Campaign "To Build Emotional Ties Between Merck and Consumers". Princessiccia

Merck public relations

Gusty 06:55 Add Comment

The NY Times reported that Merck is embarking on a big $20 million marketing campaign to "help burnish its corporate brand rather than sell its products."
Len Taconi, executive director for corporate communication for Merck, said, "It's an important time for people to know who Merck is and what we stand for as a company."
Robert Passikoff, President of Brand Keys, described by the Times as "a brand and customer-loyalty consultant," said "Merck would be wise to make sure it has more friends than disgruntled patients. Ultimately, you're better off having a tighter emotional bond to your customer base." The Times also reported that the "campaign will try in several ways to build emotional ties between Merck and consumers."
Of course, Merck is a firm that has been around for a long time, and has produced many important products that we physicians have been happy to use> Merck certainly seemed, at least through the start of the 1990's, to be one of the great American companies.
However, in the last year, Merck has come under substantial fire for putting marketing before science, and in particular for manipulating scientific evidence about its formerly hot selling drug Vioxx, now withdrawn from the market.
For example, we have posted about how Merck tried to "neutralize" Vioxx opponents; about how Merck tried to downplay negative results of studies about Vioxx; about how Merck had a New England Journal article reporting a key trial of Vioxx ghost-written; and about how Merck marketed Vioxx as a general-purpose pain reliever in the absence of evidence that it any better in this role than a variety of cheaper drugs, while again down-playing data about its adverse effects.
So perhaps rather than trying to "build emotional ties," in my humble opinion, if Merck wants to regain the profession's and the public's trust, it should rededicate itself to doing valid, honest research about its products, and then presenting its results clearly and honestly. Merck should promote evidence-based health care, rather than spending $20 million on emotion-based marketing.