healthy4u

A Source of the Anechoic Effect Discovered: the Public Relations Person in the Room

A series of posts in journalism blogs last month revealed a mechanism used by health care organizational leaders to shape discussion of the issues that affect their interests, but one that is probably unfamiliar to most health care professionals and the public at large.  Let me provide the key quotes in chronological order. First, <a href="http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2010/06/tell-us-about-your-access-to-federal-officials/">from the Covering Health blog</a> of the Association for Health Care Journalism (10 June, 2010): <blockquote>Have you recently tried to get information from the federal government or arrange an interview with a federal official? AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee is calling on journalists to report their experiences, as part of a continuing effort to pry open the doors of the federal government. We’re looking for recent anecdotes about journalists’ experiences with public information officers, especially at the Department of Health and Human Services and any of the agencies that are part of it (e.g., CDC, FDA, CMS etc.). Please write to Felice J. Freyer, Right-to-Know Committee chair, at felice.freyer@cox.net, about problems you have encountered, including mandates to clear interviews with the press office, slow responses, refused interviews, burdensome requirements (such as written questions and answers only), extreme time limitations on interviews, PIOs listening in on your conversations, or anything else that made it hard for you to get the information and quotes that you needed in time.</blockquote> The implication here, of course, is that the committee was concerned that journalists attempting to interview employees and officials of US government health agencies may encounter a variety of problems, including public information officers "listening in on your conversation." Of course, just because the committee was concerned about a possible problem does not mean the problem exists, or is if it exists, is important. However, a week later <a href="http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2010/06/news-service-to-disclose-when-pios-listen-in/">this post </a>appeared in the Covering Health blog (17 June, 2010): <blockquote>MedPage Today, an online breaking-news service for physicians, today instituted a rule requiring reporters to inform readers whenever a press officer has listened in on an interview. 'If a source’s comments are monitored by a press officer, then the person may not have been speaking freely,' said Peggy Peck, vice president and executive editor. 'That’s information readers should have.' Peck instructed her staff to use phrases like 'said in a telephone interview that was monitored by a public information officer' whenever using quotes from such an interview. Peck emphasized that a reporter’s goal should be to avoid having a press officer listening to calls or attending face-to-face interviews. 'But if that is the only way a researcher will talk, we need to let our readers know that,' said Peck’s memo to eight reporters. Peck is a member of AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee, and the rule sprang from the committee’s work to end interference by public information officers in newsgathering, especially in the federal government. 'I applaud MedPage Today for taking this step and encourage reporters and editors everywhere to follow suit,' said Felice J. Freyer, chair of the Right-to-Know Committee and a member of AHCJ’s Board of Directors. 'Reporters have come to accept the presence of public relations people at interviews, but it’s really not acceptable. We all know that such eavesdropping hinders the free flow of information – and we need to let our readers know that this is happening.'</blockquote> Now this is much more clear. Apparently some, maybe most of the information obtained by journalists from interviews of officials and employees of government health care agencies was monitored by public relations people, presumably to keep the interviewees "on message," and remind them not to say anything that did not fit the party line.  Furthermore, such monitoring was not often disclosed by the reports when they wrote about the interview.  In addition, Paul Raeburn posted <a href="http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2010/06/22/medpage-today-should-reporters-tell-readers-when-a-pio-listens-in/">this</a> on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker blog: <blockquote>I’ve long been troubled by the insistence of some 'public' information officers (they are paid to work for their institutions, not the public, although the interests of the two can sometimes coincide) to listen in or sit in on interviews. Even if they don’t say a word, their presence inevitably changes the interview. Imagine telling colleagues about the last story you wrote, and what you had to do to get it. Now imagine the same conversation with your colleagues while your editor–on whom your livelihood depends–listens in. I don’t imagine myself dissembling in either set of circumstances, but I can certainly imagine myself telling the story a little differently in each case. The point is not that information officers are always trying to limit or shape the interview, although that clearly happens. The point is not to challenge the integrity of information officers, although, like reporters, some are better at what they do than are others. The point is that the presence of an institutional representative changes the interview. And we owe it to out readers to conduct interviews without that presence whenever possible.</blockquote>Mr Raeburn seemed to make an effort to be exquisitely polite, but still managed to affirm that the public relations person in the room is a real and important phenomenon in reporting about health care. This reinforces the notion that monitoring of interviews with journalists by public relations people is common practice, but one heretofore not discussed publicly.  It seems obvious that the point of this practice was to keep the interviewee on message, and to restrain any discussion that might not fit with the public relations persons' bosses interests. If we did not know about the practice of keeping a public relations person in the room for interviews with people working for the government, it seems likely that we also did not know about similar practices affecting interviews with people in other kinds of health care organizations, e.g., for-profit corporations, and not-for-profit organizations. We have frequently discussed the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/anechoic%20effect">"anechoic effect,"</a> how important cases, stories, and data about the negative effects of concentration and abuse of power in health care, and about ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt leadership of health care organizations, and the unaccountable, unrepresentative, opaque, and often unethical governance that enables it are often just not discussed, and when discussed, produce few echoes.  Now we see another mechanism that maintains this effect.  Large health care organizations deploy substantial money and personnel to market their products and massage their messages.  These people apparently use a variety of tactics to control the flow of information to journalists.  While journalists seem to be provide much more information about the problems in health care we discuss on Health Care Renewal than professional and academic publications and meetings, we now see one more mechanism that has impeded them from doing so openly and fully. In my humble opinion, disclosing that interviews were monitored by public relations personnel is one small, but important step in beginning free enquiry into what has gone wrong with health care.  Bravo to the people who have stood up for it.

A Source of the Anechoic Effect Discovered: the Public Relations Person in the Room

A series of posts in journalism blogs last month revealed a mechanism used by health care organizational leaders to shape discussion of the ...

Đọc thêm »

How Can a $101 Million a Year CEO Help "People Get the Care They Need at an Affordable Price?"

In 2005, we entitled a post, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-can-1248-million-year-ceo-make.html">"How Can a $124.8 Million a Year CEO Make Health Care More Affordable?"</a>  At that time, we contrasted the enormous compensation given to the then CEO of UnitedHealth, Dr William McGuire, with the stated mission of his corporation.  Since then, we have traced the travails of UnitedHealth and its leadership.  Dr McGuire was eventually accused of receiving backdated stock options (which at one time raised his personal fortune to over $1 billion), and was pushed into retirement.  UnitedHealth was accused of a variety of management and ethical lapses.  The rather sorry story as of April, 2010 was summarized <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-me-worry-redux-another-leader.html">here</a>. The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The Minneapolis Star-Tribune just<a href="http://www.startribune.com/business/97179209.html"> reported</a>: <blockquote>Stephen Hemsley, a serious and studious man, is known for his marathon-like work schedule, which regularly includes Saturdays and Sundays, in his role as chief executive of Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group. Now, he also is known as the highest-paid CEO in Minnesota with a 2009 pay package totaling $101.96 million, six times the amount paid to the next CEO in the Star Tribune's annual survey of the state's 100 highest-paid chief executives at publicly traded companies. But Hemsley's big pay package is also a vestige of the company's former practice of loading executive compensation heavily with stock options, a practice that changed in the wake of a crippling backdating scandal four years ago. Those options, granted under a different regime of board directors, accounted for $98.6 million of Hemsley's income in 2009.</blockquote> The attempts company officials made to minimize Hemsley's outsized compensation were almost funny: <blockquote>UnitedHealth officials assert that Hemsley's 2009 pay package minus the 10-year-old options was $8.9 million, far less than the compensation paid to CEOs in other health insurance organizations.</blockquote> But Hemsley did exercise the options, so he did receive the additional $98.6 million. Hemsley also seems on target to get gargantuan compensation this year too: <blockquote>Nonetheless, Hemsley has already put up good compensation numbers for 2010 with the exercising of additional options granted after 1999 worth $21 million. He also controls 6 million exercisable and unexercisable options, half of which are underwater or below the stock's current value.</blockquote> The cringe-inducing contrast is with UnitedHealth's high-minded mission statement: <blockquote>Our mission is to help people live healthier lives. * We seek to enhance the performance of the health system and improve the overall health and well-being of the people we serve and their communities. * We work with health care professionals and other key partners to expand access to quality health care so people get the care they need at an affordable price. * We support the physician/patient relationship and empower people with the information, guidance and tools they need to make personal health choices and decisions.</blockquote> Hemsley's compensation could have provided "care they need" to quite a few people at an affordable price. More to the point, it is hard to imagine that a company that feels the need to pay so much to its CEO, and a CEO that can accept such riches, have the slightest understanding or interest in providing people "the care they need at an affordable price." In this cynical age, I doubt many people credit the UnitedHealth mission statement with being more than advertising fluff. Nonetheless, I suspect most people believe that our society should try to provide as many people as possible with "the care they need at an affordable price," but realize that we are far from doing so. Health care insurance companies/ managed care organizations that see fit to make their hired leaders extremely rich seem to be part of the problem, not the solution.

How Can a $101 Million a Year CEO Help "People Get the Care They Need at an Affordable Price?"

In 2005, we entitled a post, "How Can a $124.8 Million a Year CEO Make Health Care More Affordable?" At that time, we contrasted...

Đọc thêm »

"Smoke Detector" - Medical Center Leader (and Former Biotech CEO) Outed as Tobacco Investor

Last year we posted about the seemingly incongruous choice of a wealthy biotechnology executive with little academic or practice experience to run the prestigious University of California - San Francisco, a health oriented university housing a respected medical school.  We wondered whether her corporate background would make it difficult to uphold the university's academic and patient care missions. In line with our concerns, Duff Wilson, writing in the New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/health/29altria.html">reported</a>: <blockquote>When Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann was named chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco, last summer, she took over a medical institution focused on world health generally and tobacco control in particular. But she forgot one thing in adjusting to her new role: personal stock holdings listed last year in the range of $100,000 to $1 million in Altria, owner of Philip Morris USA, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes. Altria has been blamed for thousands of deaths and repeatedly criticized by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the university. Last week, a day after The New York Times inquired about the Altria stock, Dr. Desmond-Hellmann and her husband, also a doctor, ordered it to be immediately sold and imposed 'values screening' on their personal investments.</blockquote> Experts on tobacco control were aghast: <blockquote>Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, director of the university’s tobacco control center, said he was unaware of Dr. Desmond-Hellmann’s Altria stock, which was contained in a university filing but not made public until now, after a public records request by a former student who passed it on to The Times. “I do find that kind of shocking, but at least she got rid of it,” Dr. Glantz said on Monday, adding that Dr. Desmond-Hellmann had been very supportive of the center. Dr. Kenneth E. Warner, dean of the school of public health at the University of Michigan and a national antitobacco leader, said, “I find it frankly a bit appalling that the chancellor of a major medical center would have held such stock. It strikes me as unthinking, frankly.” </blockquote> We should give Dr Desmond-Hellmann credit for selling her Altria stock as soon as its connotations were made plain to her. (And at least she was not on the board of a tobacco company, to our knowledge, as <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/07/vcu-philip-morris-and-recent.html">was</a> one former president of a university and large health sciences center.) However, this little incident underlines the clash between the culture that dominates large health care corporations and the mission of medical schools and academic medical centers. In the last 30 years, academic medicine has rushed to embrace the reigning corporate culture, not to mention corporate money. I submit that this embrace has been at the peril of the fundamental academic and patient care missions. Academic medical leaders need to promote better patient care, and honest, responsible teaching and research. To do so, they may have to give up some of the glitz, glamor, and cash proffered by industry. If they do not make this sacrifice, they risk losing the trust of an increasingly skeptical, if not cynical public.

"Smoke Detector" - Medical Center Leader (and Former Biotech CEO) Outed as Tobacco Investor

Last year we posted about the seemingly incongruous choice of a wealthy biotechnology executive with little academic or practice experience ...

Đọc thêm »

Insel Admits His Statements "May be Viewed as Misleading"

Dr Bernard Carroll has posted several times, most recently <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/06/insel-and-nemeroff-what-sanctions.html">here</a>, about shenanigans by "key opinion leaders" in psychiatry whose apparently academic writing and speeches have conveyed messages in line with the marketing agendas of drug and device companies, while they downplayed or concealed their financial ties to these companies.  Lately, Dr Carroll <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/06/insel-and-nemeroff-what-sanctions.html">noted</a> how the current director of the US National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), Dr Thomas Insel, has defended Dr Charles Nemeroff, whose recent move to the University of Miami let him shed sanctions imposed by Emory University for his failure to disclose conflicts of interest while he was there. Dr Carroll wrote, "For the past three months, Insel has been trying to put some distance between himself and Nemeroff, but the public isn’t buying it. I have called his statements disingenuous...." Dr Carroll is on vacation, so in his absence, I note the following from a <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogPost/NIH-Official-Softens-Denial-of/25174/">brief article</a> in the Chronicle of Higher Education: <blockquote>The director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Thomas R. Insel, has softened his denial of a mutually helpful relationship with Charles B. Nemeroff, a university researcher found to have repeatedly collected undisclosed corporate payments. In an update to his official blog posting, Dr. Insel said his initial denial of job assistance from Dr. Nemeroff 'may be viewed as misleading,' and acknowledged that Dr. Nemeroff served in key positions related to Dr. Insel's hiring by Emory University.</blockquote> This seems to corroborate Dr Carroll's skepticism. I wonder what other statements by Dr Insel, or Dr Nemeroff for that matter, ought to be "viewed as misleading?" We have said repeatedly that commercially sponsored "key opinion leaders" are really part-time drug marketers disguising themselves as academics or distinguished practitioners. The deceptions inherent in these roles seem to lead to a certain habitually elastic approach to the truth. Medical academics and practitioners will need a renewed commitment to honesty and transparency if they want to regain the respect of an increasingly skeptical, if not cynical public.

Insel Admits His Statements "May be Viewed as Misleading"

Dr Bernard Carroll has posted several times, most recently here , about shenanigans by "key opinion leaders" in psychiatry whose a...

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - Deceptive Pharmaceutical Marketing

Perhaps in honor of the recently concluded <a href="http://www.pharmedout.org/conferenceagenda.htm">meeting</a> organized by Dr Adriene Fugh-Berman and her colleagues at PharmedOut.org on the pharmaceutical industry and its influence on continuing medical education, three significant posts appeared this week about deceptive pharmaceutical marketing practices.  <a href="http://www.healthbusinessblog.com/?p=3548">On the Health Business Blog</a>, David Williams analyzed how a former pharmaceutical and biotechnology executive spun the Vioxx case, blaming it all on the public's risk aversion.  <a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-does-drug-industry-exert-power.html">On the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma Blog</a>, Dr Howard Brody summarized two significant articles by Kalman Applbaum on complex psychological campaigns, really versions of disinformation campaigns, used to to market pharmaceuticals.  <a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/06/former-emory-psychiatrist-criticizes.html">On the Carlat Psychiatry Blog</a>, Dr Daniel Carlat published a letter about life at a medical school department lead by Dr Charles Nemeroff, one of the "key opinion leaders" most lavishly paid by pharmaceutical companies to help them market questionable drugs for questionable reasons, and giving observations on Dr Nemeroff's new career.

BLOGSCAN - Deceptive Pharmaceutical Marketing

Perhaps in honor of the recently concluded meeting organized by Dr Adriene Fugh-Berman and her colleagues at PharmedOut.org on the pharmace...

Đọc thêm »

WellPoint: Don't Know Much About Computer Programming; Aetna: Don't Know Much About Mathematics

Big US based health care insurance companies have not been covering themselves in glory in the last week. Aetna's Math Errors First, there was the case of Aetna's mathematical prowess, e.g., as <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aetna-rates-20100625,0,6758148.story">reported</a> by the Los Angeles Times: <blockquote>A second insurance company in California has killed plans for double-digit rate hikes for individual policyholders because of errors in its filing that would have inflated premiums, state regulators said Thursday. Connecticut-based Aetna Inc. had sought an average 19% increase in rates for its 65,000 individual customers, but pulled back after multiple math errors in its paperwork were found by its own staff and by an independent consultant working for the state. Aetna's decision follows a similar move by Anthem Blue Cross, which canceled a rate increase of as much as 39% for many of its 800,000 California policyholders in April after the state consultant found calculation errors in its filing with the California Insurance Department.</blockquote> Of course, Aetna tried to minimize the story: <blockquote>An Aetna spokeswoman said the company found 'a miscalculation not previously detected' when it conducted a third round of internal reviews. 'This was a simple human error,' said spokeswoman Anjanette Coplin, who did not elaborate.</blockquote> However, <blockquote>'There were multiple errors … in the way [Aetna] annualized premiums and in the compounding of the rate increase,' said state Insurance Department spokesman Darrel Ng.</blockquote> Of course, somehow the errors all were in Aetna's favor: <blockquote>Even with the new disclosure requirements, regulators have limited authority to block rate increases. They can do so only if insurers fail to spend at least 70% of their premiums on medical claims. In Aetna's recent rate filing, the insurer said its plan met the 70% minimum. But once the errors were identified, medical-claim spending fell below the 70% requirement. The proposed rates were higher than they should have been, officials said. </blockquote> WellPoint's Computer Errors A few minutes ago, the Associated Press <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gyEYsN9IqMS3mmDmnLf8e1TsLhOgD9GL40E02">reported</a>: <blockquote>WellPoint Inc. has notified 470,000 individual insurance customers that medical records, credit card numbers and other sensitive information may have been exposed in the latest security breach of the health insurer's records. The Indianapolis company said the problem stemmed from an online program customers can use to track the progress of their application for coverage. It was fixed in March. Spokeswoman Cynthia Sanders said an outside vendor had upgraded the insurer's application tracker last October and told the insurer all security measures were back in place. But a California customer discovered that she could call up confidential information of other customers by manipulating Web addresses used in the program. Customers use a Web site and password to track their applications.</blockquote> Note that this security breach was potentially serious: <blockquote>WellPoint's security breach doesn't crack the top 10 in terms of number of people who may have had information exposed, said Paul Stephens, the [Privacy Rights Clearinghouse]organization's director of policy and advocacy. Even so, he labeled the breach 'very serious' because it possibly involved both financial and medical information.</blockquote> This is not the first time WellPoint's computers and software have violated the privacy of its applicants or customers: <blockquote>Two years ago, WellPoint offered free credit monitoring after it said personal information for about 128,000 customers in several states had been exposed online. In 2006, backup computer tapes containing the personal information of 200,000 of its members were stolen from a Massachusetts vendor's office.</blockquote> Summary Of course, everyone makes mistakes.  However, one would expect that at least health insurance companies/ managed care organizations ought to be able to do the math necessary to support their rate proposals correctly, and keep their policy-holders' and applicants' personal information confidential.  These would seem to be fundamental competencies that such organizations ought to display.  Of course, one can find other examples of lack the lack of competency (and worse) displayed by both <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/Aetna">Aetna </a>and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/WellPoint">WellPoint</a>.  Furthermore, anyone can make mistakes, but in the real world, those who preside over such mistake-prone enterprises often do not do too well.  However, in the bizarre world of large health care organizations, the executives who preside over the ongoing bumbling just make more and more money, under the pretense that their continuing brilliant leadership just leads to one triumph after another.  As we noted <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-me-worry-leaders-prosper-despite.html">here</a>, WellPoint CEO Angela Braly's total compensation increased in 2009 to an outsized $13.1 million, with the executives just underneath her paid proportionately well.  Per its <a href="http://ir.wellpoint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2lyLmludC53ZXN0bGF3YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2RvY3VtZW50L3YxLzAwMDExOTMxMjUtMTAtMDc1ODk3L3htbA%3d%3d#toc15642_100">2010 proxy statement</a>, WellPoint's <blockquote>Total Rewards compensation program is designed to attract, engage, motivate and retain a talented team of executive officers and to appropriately reward those executive officers for their contributions to our business and our members. We seek to accomplish this goal in a way that is closely aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders and the expectations of our members and health care providers.</blockquote> I suspect that WellPoint's members' expectations did not include the three computer security breaches noted above. Similarly, according to its <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Mzc2MjMxfENoaWxkSUQ9Mzc0NzgyfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1">2010 proxy statement</a>, Aetna CEO Ronald A Williams' total compensation in 2009 was a mere $18,058,162. Other top executives made proportionate amounts, from more than $1 million to more than $12 million. The rationale underlying executive compensation includes: <blockquote>We seek to implement a pay-for-performance philosophy by tying a significant portion of our executives’ compensation to their achievement of financial and other goals that are linked to the Company’s business strategy and each executive’s contributions towards the achievement of those goals.</blockquote> To me, avoiding mathematical errors in calculating policy premiums ought to be part of the company's goals linked to its business strategy. An old rock song that starts with "don't know much about history," may have a certain charm.  Health insurance companies that cannot accurately calculate premiums or protect the confidentiality of policy-holders' computerized data has none.  As long as "imperial CEOs" can continue to get extremely rich while presiding over incompetence and stupidity, if not worse (see here), we can expect the foolishness to continue.  Meanwhile, the foolishness drives up costs and drives down quality of health care for the poor suffering patients, let alone the physicians and other health care professionals who must deal with it. To really reform health care, we need to provide incentives for competent, honest leadership, and make that leadership accountable for its shortcomings.

WellPoint: Don't Know Much About Computer Programming; Aetna: Don't Know Much About Mathematics

Big US based health care insurance companies have not been covering themselves in glory in the last week. Aetna's Math Errors First, the...

Đọc thêm »

Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to <a href="http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=38545">Frank King, D.C.,</a> many more should be doing just that: <blockquote>Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, absent nerve reflexes, and pathological nerve response patterns that the chiropractic adjustment alone does not correct. The appropriate homeopathic remedies will eliminate aberrant nerve reflexes and pathological nerve responses which cause recurrent subluxation complexes. Not only does homeopathy correct nerve interferences, it empowers the doctor of chiropractic to reach the entire nervous system. What this means is that we can now better affect the whole person, and all of the maladies that affect us. Homeopathy’s energetic approach reaches deep within the nervous system, correcting nerve interferences where the hands of chiropractic alone cannot reach. Homeopathy is the missing link that enables the chiropractor to truly affect the whole nervous system! </blockquote> But that’s not all: <blockquote>Financial Rewards Homeopathy means a multiple increase in business. Personally, I have been able to see and effectively help more patients in less time. The additional cash flow from broadening your scope of practice, increasing your patient volume and selling the homeopathic remedies is a wonderful adjunct. Better yet are the secondary financial benefits: <ul><li>Homeopathy is like an extension of you that the patient can take with them to apply throughout each day in between visits. The actual therapeutic benefits of homeopathy along with the inner comforts of the patient as they connect you with each dose they take.</li><li>The dynamic broadening of your effective scope of practice multiplies the number of patients you can help and the multiple problems that each patient usually has. As you correct one set of problems, there are commonly other problems most patients don’t even tell their chiropractors. This doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Homeopathy empowers the chiropractor to correct conditions ranging from allergies to warts with incredible effectiveness! </li><li>Obviously, the rule of multiples will exponentially increase when a homeopathic procedure is properly implemented into your practice. Many of the conditions people are suffering with have no viable solution without the dynamic duo of chiropractic and homeopathy. </li></ul>You can be the doctor people will seek out, travel long distances to see, and pay cash for your valuable services. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand, it’s a great position to be in. </blockquote> This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022">subluxation</a>” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “<a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirosell.html">practice building</a>.” Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=146">make an extra buck</a>. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4768">diagnostic’ sugar</a> that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out <a href="http://www.bio-proinc.com/site/555888/page/131760">this offering</a> from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”: <blockquote>HOWW TOOOO ….The “must do” seminars for those who own or are managing a Complimentary [sic]Medicine Practice. Three day course teaches you: How to relate to the patient, evaluate, test and diagnoseHow to use solutions, mixtures, methods, supplies and equipmentHow to protocol administration for Chelation, Oxidation, Chelox, TriOx, Ascorbates, UVBIHow to design and organize your officeHow to hire and fire staff and to computerizeHow to use public relations and marketingHow to manage compliance with Medicare, State Medical Boards and governmental regulatory agencies Manuals included…Each attendee receives one set of training materials, including:Protocol ManualPhysicians ManualOffice Procedure ManualForms BookMarketing ManualPatient Results ManualEmployee ManualAudio tapesand other related material. </blockquote>Bio-pro was founded in 1978 by the late Charles H. Farr, MD, PhD, the self-styled “<a href="http://www.sram.org/1101/charlesfarr.html">father of oxidative medicine</a>,” who was also a founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of All Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organizations (<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=247">PPO</a>). But none of this is surprising, right? After all, <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html">quacks quack</a>. What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was <a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/720244?src=ptalk&uac=27844PK">this offering</a>, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine: <blockquote>Six Ways to Earn Extra Income From Medical Activities You’re chasing after claims but watching reimbursement sink. It’s a common story, and primary care doctors and even specialists are keeping their ears to the ground for other ways to boost their bottom line. Luckily, doctors have some fairly lucrative options that can help them maintain their income — and perhaps even increase it. We looked at 6 avenues that physicians have taken to earn extra revenue. None of these activities require a tremendous amount of time. Participating in just 1 or 2 activities can put enough money in your pocket to allow you to breathe a little easier when the bills come in. </blockquote>So what are those ‘6 avenues’? Let’s see: <ul><li>Work with Attorneys </li><li>See Nursing Home Patients </li><li>Serve as a Medical Director </li></ul>So far, so not necessarily bad… <ul><li>Team Up with Pharmaceutical Companies </li></ul>What??! Team up with pharmaceutical companies? Couldn’t that mean, like, just doing legitimate research and trying like hell to do it right? Uh, nope: <blockquote>Drug and device companies spend billions of dollars each year to discover and promote new medicines and treatments, and they rely heavily on doctors to participate in these endeavors whether through clinical trials or serving as a speaker or consultant. It’s not uncommon for physicians to earn a minimum of 5 figures a year either speaking or doing clinical studies within their medical practice. Some doctors make in excess of $100,000 annually — on top of their income from seeing patients.</blockquote> O’course, you gotta watch out for those pesky <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/06/when-key-opinion-leader-questions-hand.html">ethics killjoys</a>, warns Medscape: <blockquote>Although some extra money is nice, too much can turn heads — and not in a good way. In late January, The Boston Globe reported on an allergy and asthma specialist who was issued an ultimatum by his hospital, the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts): Stop moonlighting on behalf of pharmaceutical companies or resign from your staff position. </blockquote>What it all comes down to is this: <blockquote>Pros: With typical payments running about $1500-$2500 for a single talk, there’s substantial opportunity to supplement your regular income… Cons: These arrangements are coming under increasing scrutiny from hospitals, legislators, regulators, and the media. In fact, some of the doctors whom we contacted for this article declined to talk about their involvement with drug companies. </blockquote>Uh, no kiddin’. Funny that the “increasing scrutiny” doesn’t seem to come from organized medicine, medical schools, mainstream medical journals, state medical boards, or doctors in general. A couple of years ago I <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=189">lamented the publication</a> of a couple of book reviews, in the lofty New England Journal of Medicine, that celebrated trendy pseudomedicine. Shortly thereafter I received this from an emeritus editor: <blockquote>I think the incursion into the bastions of medicine has to do with the fact that everything nowadays—absolutely everything—has become a market. If quackery appeals to the readers of the NEJM, it will be there. ”Is it true?” is no longer the question anyone asks, but “Will it sell?” And I think that applies to the editors of most major journals, as well. </blockquote>True, dat. As for Medscape, this isn’t its first ethical gaff, and I agree with <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/06/medscapes-cme-ethics-part-ii.html">Bernard Carroll</a> that it seems to have “a right hand – left hand problem.” Oh yeah: what were the other 2 “avenues”? Those would be: <ul><li>Become a Media Personality </li><li>Consult for Wall Street </li></ul>

Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to Frank King, D.C., many more should be doing just that: Homeopathy is an energetic...

Đọc thêm »