« Raj Rage | Main | Commonwealth of Nations »
August 13, 2007
Duck and Cover
by Peter Pitts
Senator Grassley is proposing legislation that would have pharmaceutical companies disclose payments made to physicians for just about eveything. The Senator wants "transparency."
And transparency is a good thing.
Should Big Pharma be disclosing payments or should the burden of transparency be on the physician? Good debate. But here's a bigger question -- if transparency is a good thing when it comes to Big Pharma's payments to doctors, how about transparency for everyone else paying docs in order to influence their prescribing habits?
Specifically, where is the transparency when it comes to the payments insurance companies provide to physicians for switching their patients from brand name to generic medicines?
It's not in the Grassley bill.
Or what about transparency regarding how some state governments are leveraging a physician's prescribing habits via state regulations?
Also not in the Grassley bill.
It seems the Grassley is always greener when it comes to slamming Big Pharma -- but that everyone else with an open wallet (or a tight wallet in the case of state governments) gets a free pass.
If transparency is good for the goose then it's good for the gander.
Posted by peterpitts at August 13, 2007 07:52 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/137
