Medical Doctors Accept Industry Payments—Oh Yes!

bigpharmabigmedica

Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine J. Frompovich
March 10, 2017

Taking ‘kickbacks’ from an industry one is a professional in, or involved with, has been classified in several ways.  The insurance industry calls it “rebating” [1].  Kickbacks also have been defined as “bribery” [2].  There’s an online site about “kickbacks in U.S. history” wherein the Cornhusker Kickback is mentioned.  That ‘affair’ involved congressional Democrats not having enough votes for ObamaCare to pass.  According to that website, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s vote supposedly was bought in exchange for some “pork” for his home state of Nebraska.  However, that ‘pork pie’ did not go over well, so the final upshot from congressional haggling was that all states would receive the same perks as Nebraska.

Nevertheless, how many healthcare consumers are aware their medical doctors also take kickbacks or get perks from Big Pharma?  Medical Press published the article “What’s the real extent of industry payments to doctors?”, which ought to enlighten patients and consumers as to why they may be taking so many prescription drugs and why parents are bombarded with mandatory vaccines for their children or else become ‘divorced’ from their family doctor’s practice.

A survey was taken with the results published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.  That survey, according to Medical Press, indicates “more than three in every five Americans see a doctor who receives some form of payment from industry.” [3]

One of the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, was that pharmaceuticals and medical devices manufacturers must report gifts and payments made to healthcare providers, which is publicly available on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments website.

That survey claims 65 percent of respondents visited a practitioner who took payments or kickbacks.

A 2016 survey regarding payments to dermatologists published in JAMA Dermatology [October 5, 2016. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3037] indicates 8,333 dermatologists received 208,613 payments totaling $34 Million in 2014 [4].

The top 15 companies were all pharmaceutical manufacturers and they paid dermatologists $28.7 million, which was 81 percent of the total amount disbursed, according to the study. [4]

So how much do you think was paid to pediatricians, the medical professionals who push vaccines and vaccinations on infants, toddlers, teens and their parents?  According to Clinical Pediatrics:

Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, 35 697 pediatricians received payments amounting to $30,031,960. [That’s million!]

General pediatricians received the majority of payments (71%). Median payment was $15 (interquartile range = $12-$24), mostly in the form of noncash items and services (84%). Significant diversity was observed in median payments among specialty providers. In conclusion, 42% of US pediatricians received industry payments in 2014.

That’s over $30 MILLION given to 35,697 pediatricians.  Let’s do some math.  $30,031,960 divided by 35,697 equals an average of $841.30, not $12 to $24!

Another way of doing the math is 35,697 multiplied by $24 [the highest payment in the $12-$24 range] equals $856,728; not $30 Million plus!  Is there a discrepancy variance of $29,175,232, or is my calculator wrong?

What’s going on; is someone messing with the math?

Well baby visits certainly seem profitable for pediatricians—doesn’t that seem so?  Those visits are the unfortunate times when pediatricians administer up to nine vaccines at once to infants weighing less than 25 pounds during one office visit. Outrageous!  That practice ought to be considered medical malpractice, especially injecting so many neurotoxic chemicals into a defenseless child whose immune system, for all intents and purposes, is harmed—or ‘castrated’ by all the toxins injected.  Isn’t that chemical child abuse?  Where’s legislation to deal with medical-toxic-vaccine [1] child abuse?


We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

David Rockefeller, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting, Baden, Germany

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

Reference:

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

Resource:

CDC’s Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

References:

[1] http://www.saracaldwellpa.com/newsletters/elder-law/unfair-and-deceptive-insurance-practices-rebating/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickback_(bribery)
[3] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-real-extent-industry-payments-doctors.html
[4] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-10-industry-payments-dermatologists.html

 

Drug Companies To Pay $67 Million For ‘Exaggerating Claims, Misleading Doctors’

image-Tarceva-for-735-265
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
June 10, 2016

Two drug companies, Genentech and OSI Pharmaceuticals, have agreed to pay $67 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit accusing them of misleading doctors about the effectiveness of a cancer drug called Tarceva. – By agreeing to the settlement, neither company admitted any guilt.

Federal prosecutors in San Francisco announced the settlement on June 6, 2016.

The whistleblower, Brian Shields, had worked as a Tarceva sales representative, and later as a product manager. He filed the lawsuit in 2011 under the False Claims Act. Shields and his attorneys will receive $10 million of the settlement. The remainder of the settlement will be divided between State Medicaid programs and the federal government.

The former Army helicopter pilot said that when he complained about some Tarceva promotional materials, his supervisors told him he “was not a team player.” [1]

Shields alleged that the company had provided doctors and medical professionals with misleading information about Tarceva. According to a news release received by CNN, the companies had led doctors to believe that the drug would be effective in a broad patient population.

But Genentech and OSI knew there was little evidence to support that claim, and that Tarceva had been shown to be effective only in non-small-cell lung cancer patients who had never smoked, or who had a particular genetic mutation in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which is involved with cancer growth. The lawsuit alleged also that the companies’ promotional materials discouraged testing for EGFR mutation.

Additionally, the companies’ marketing materials and communications with doctors from 2006 to 2011 had led physicians to prescribe the drug for newly diagnosed patients, even though the FDA had only approved Tarceva as a second-line treatment. [2]

The companies were also accused in the suit of giving physicians illegal kickbacks disguised as payments for making speeches or for serving on Genentech’s advisory board.

Sales reps nationwide were “instructed to spend lavishly” on doctors, and were given “an unlimited budget to wine and dine.”

Source: Paul Sakuma/Associated Press
Source: Paul Sakuma/Associated Press

An attorney for the whistleblower said:

“Not only does this case involve a cancer drug, but it is [the] first False Claims Act recovery involving allegations of a drug manufacturer making misleading representations about its drug’s survival data.”

Accurate survival data are vital to doctors’ prescribing decisions.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

How Money From Pharmaceutical Companies Sways Doctors’ Prescriptions

QuestionEverything2
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
April 13, 2016

If your doctor receives money or gifts from a drug company, be it payment for a lecture or a free meal, does it influence the medications he or she in turn prescribes? This represents the burning question in an industry saturated with pharmaceutical company involvement.

A ProPublica analysis revealed nearly nine in 10 cardiologists, and seven in 10 internists and family practitioners, included in their study received payments from drug or device companies in 2014.1 But the analysis didn’t stop there.

It also looked into whether or not such payments were associated with prescribing practices, and here’s where things got interesting.

Doctors Who Received Drug-Company Money Prescribed More Brand-Name Drugs

ProPublica analyzed the prescribing habits of doctors who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions in the Medicare Part D drug program. The doctors belonged to five common specialties: psychiatry, cardiovascular disease, family medicine, internal medicine and ophthalmology.

Not only was the receipt of drug-company money associated with a higher percentage of brand-name drug prescriptions, but the prescriptions rose with the amount of money received.2

The analysis included promotional speaking, consulting, business travel, meals, royalties and gifts as forms of drug company payments. Those who received more than $5,000 from industry in 2014 prescribed the most brand-name drugs. According to the analysis:

“In all cases, the group receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate on average.

Additionally, the type of payment made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians who received no payments, and those who received speaking payments had a higher rate than those who received other types of payments.”

Are Drug-Company Payments ‘Thinly Veiled Kickbacks?’

Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, told The Atlantic regarding the featured study:3

“It again confirms the prevailing wisdom … that there is a relationship between payments and brand-name prescribing … This feeds into the ongoing conversation about the propriety of these sorts of relationships.

Hopefully we’re getting past the point where people will say, ‘Oh, there’s no evidence that these relationships change physicians’ prescribing practices.'”

Indeed, this is far from the first time that such payments have been linked to prescribing practices.

A 2010 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine also found that nearly 84 percent of physicians surveyed reported some type of relationship with industry during the previous year, and those with such a relationship were more likely to prescribe a brand-name drug even when a generic alternative was available.4

The finding isn’t only relevant for patients, who may be paying more unnecessarily for brand-name drugs, but also for taxpayers who spend billions each year subsidizing Medicare Part D. At least 1 in 4 U.S. prescriptions are paid for by Medicare.

Meanwhile, it’s worth repeating that the reason drug companies pay doctors and aggressively promote certain medications is not to benefit patients; it’s to benefit their bottom line. And there’s often a fine line between legitimate payments and illegal kickbacks. ProPublica noted:5

” … [F]ederal whistle-blower lawsuits against several pharmaceutical companies have alleged that payments are little more than thinly veiled kickbacks, which are illegal. Companies have paid billions of dollars to settle the cases.”

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com