Fear Mongering in the Bay State ?
Massachusetts is facing some heat on their new regulations aimed at restricting financial relationships between Doctors and Pharma.
No doubt medical conventions generate lots of revenue for the local cities hosting them, hotels, restaurants and other related services benefit from them.
It seems the spirit of the new regulations are not so well understood, and this is causing a few medical conventions to pull out of Boston. Either that, or there is some unnecessary fear mongering going on...Here are the draft guidelines
Having worked many years in the Pharma industry, I can tell you one thing that I thought was pretty silly - those pens and other free gadgets given out at the booth. I always thought, how is it that Doctors make it through all their high level education, yet we need to supply them with pens, prescription pads, sometimes even stethoscopes, clocks - the list goes on and on...These little gifts are basic things that Doctors should have in order to do their job. Additionally, it is wasteful stuff, harms the environment (which cause more illness), and spends years rotting in some landfill somewhere. Why do we think the motto of the Doctors we are trying to sell to is "Will work for graft?" Isn't it some sort of mockery of their intelligence? We should have someone do garbage detail at one of those conventions. You would be amazed to see how much of that stuff is thrown away right at the convention center or dumped and left later in the vacated hotel room.
Why is this so important? Because the Obama team is looking at the Massachusetts regulations and their Health Care reform as a model for a National Program.
Here's the convention piece from today's Boston Globe. Come back and join the discussion over here:
First TAKE OUR POLL at the LEFT of the page, then add your comments!
1.) These regulations are aimed at reducing costs incurred by Pharma that can and should be reduced, which would hopefully have a positive effect on the cost of deliverables to the consumers. Doesn't it make sense that this is a good starting point in helping health care be accessible by all?
2.) After reading the draft guidelines, do we really think that taking away graft is going to stop Doctors from doing the work they spent many hard years in school to finally earn the right to do? Will they really stop coming to conventions and thereby earning important CME credits?
3.) It seems to me that the guidelines do not deter company scientists from doing their work, yet that seems to be the "battle cry" from the other team. Are the Pharma industry claims justified?