he 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"
- A linguistic dissection of 7 annoying teenage sounds
- WATCH: Suspect defends brutal beheading of London man in broad daylight
- Is Greek yogurt hurting the environment?
- The politics behind Kanye West's 'New Slaves'
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- 32 TV shows to watch in 2013 [Updated]
- What is a quantum computer — and why does Google need one?
- Want to make money off Bitcoin mining? Hint: Don't mine
- Confessions of a trust-fund baby
- The FBI kills Tamerlan Tsarnaev's friend: 4 things we know [Updated]
- The politics behind Kanye West's 'New Slaves'
- Are we on the cusp of a solar energy boom?
- Why Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn doesn't want tornado relief money
- WATCH: Jon Stewart hates everyone in Washington now
- LIVE UPDATES: Massive tornado tears through Oklahoma City area
- Angry at the government? 5 ways you can fight back
- 7 purported health benefits of drinking coffee
- What is a quantum computer — and why does Google need one?
- Why NASA is funding a 3D pizza printer
- The cool backstory of the Slurpee
|
||
|
The daily gossip: Paris Hilton is releasing another album, and more |
|
|
The daily gossip: Seth MacFarlane definitely won't be hosting the Oscars next year, and more |
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||













