This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
Drug companies influences on docs and disclosure laws (from Dr. William Douglas email reports)
Now I can't prove anything in a few sentences and surely suspect plenty of game playing on us cancer patients of all types. Pushing the highest priced or profittable drugs seems way to common place from what I have seen. Lupron has like 75% of the LHRH market share, lost lawsuits years ago in the multi hundreds of millions and did not phase them (lol). Here is something mentioned by Dr. Douglas and concerns the newer discloser laws which may or may not be all that great in actuality (great in theory of course)>
New disclosures disclose too little
It's a matter of fact that docs who take cash from drug companies prescribe meds differently. OF COURSE they favor meds from the firms that pay them. OF COURSE they're more willing to use those drugs off-label. OF COURSE they're more likely to prescribe them willy-nilly.
But even if your doctor doesn't reveal who he's in bed with, his partner is going to have to fess up. Because under new disclosure rules kicking in next month, drug companies will be forced to reveal every payment and gift they make to docs.
That includes not just money for consulting and/or speaking on behalf of a drug, but it also includes those notorious travel and entertainment expenses -- like, say, an "informational session" held on a beach in Waikiki.
Even small expenses -- lunch with the doctor, or bagels for his receptionists -- will need to be reported.
It's a step in the right direction, but you're still going to have to do your part. Because if you expect to see these disclosures where they might actually help you, like posted on the wall in the waiting room, you've got another thing coming.
Instead, they'll be put online in a government database, which means you'll have to look into your doctor BEFORE you see him -- quite a challenge if, say, you've been taken to the hospital and you're being treated by doctors you've never seen before.
In those cases, you'll still have to guess. You can start by looking at the logo on his pen. And that gives me an idea: Who says docs need to wear white jackets or scrubs anyway?
Let's give them some new attire: a jacket with the logos of all their corporate benefactors sewn into it.
It works for NASCAR drivers.
--------------------------------------------------
I liked his Nascar reference and clues for we the public. Some of those junkets to conferences in Hawaii or such are surely something we would love to know details about (lol). You wonder why things like Zytiga cost $5,300 a month for pills??? Lots of cashin on our plites is my guess. They are winning all the time, but are you the patient winning???
Re: Drug companies influences on docs and disclosure laws (from Dr. William Douglas email reports)
I doubt that the disclosure laws will be very effective because any declarations made will presumably go to some bureaucratic department which will claim to be constrained by privacy laws from disclosing any god information.
And how will the returns be policed? Most democratic countries have rules in place for their politicians to declare donations, funding, freebies etc. Does anyone relly believe that these are effective. If there is anyone, please mail me as there is a fine bridge in Sydney which I can sell them - and throw in an Opera House for the right price.
One little item I learned of yesterday (and haven't had a chance to follow up) is that apparently the people who own Avodart have taken over the producwers of Flomax - hence the increase in men taking Avodart. But Avodart is, as far as I know, much more expensive and has a very different long term effect compared to Fomax.
Re: Drug companies influences on docs and disclosure laws (from Dr. William Douglas email reports)
Yeap I agree, look whom passes these laws in the USA, usually lawyers and lobbied types or influence peddling. This is free market enterprise and capitalism and then perhaps a doseage of righteousness and good deed doers thrown in to make it all look fair and pretty. (lol)
Interesting about flomax and avodart looking to gain some marketing apparently. As usual the patient wins the higher costs prize that awaits.
Re: Drug companies influences on docs and disclosure laws (from Dr. William Douglas email reports)
Hello everyone,
Terry, this might be slightly off topic, but further to your comment about Avodart and Flomax, on 1st August, 2011, Dutasteride with tamsulosin in a fixed dose combination was listed on the PBS under the name Duodart. For non-Aussies, PBS is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme here in OZ.
Previously, Avodart could only be prescribed on the PBS (by a urologist) in combination with an alpha-blocker. So it seemed inevitable that Duodart would emerge, being 0.5 mg of dutasteride (Avodart) combined with 0.4 mg of tamsulosin (Flomax) in the same capsule.
