Showing posts with label Pharmaceuticals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pharmaceuticals. Show all posts

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Is There a Drug For Broken Credulity?

Is There a Drug For Broken Credulity?My old buddy Art Caplan is on the mark with this. Follow the bouncing links.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Big Pharma and Med Students

The Chronicle: Daily news: 05/11/2007 -- 07: Medical Students' Group Gives 40 Schools an F on Policies Regarding Access by Drug Companies:

A majority of medical schools have no policies in place to prevent pharmaceutical companies from marketing drugs directly to students, according to a report released on Thursday by an advocacy group representing medical students from around the country.

For its '2007 PharmFree Scorecard,' the group, the American Medical Student Association, assigned medical schools a grade based on whether they had either initiated policies to prevent pharmaceutical companies from marketing on their campuses or were discussing establishing such a policy. Of the 117 schools that responded, only 14 received an A or B, and 40 received an F, meaning they neither had such a policy nor were discussing adopting one, or they actively encouraged students to interact with industry representatives.

'What we're calling out, and what we're upset with, are the marketing practices of the pharmaceutical industry...'


UW Med School is assigned a D on this scale.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Updated: OxyContin Maker Pleads Guilty, Says It Downplayed Risk

From The New York Times:
By BARRY MEIER
ABINGDON, Va., May 10 —The company that makes the narcotic painkiller OxyContin and three current and former executives pleaded guilty today in federal court here to criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and its potential to be abused.

To resolve criminal and civil charges related to the drug’s “misbranding”, the parent of Purdue Pharma, the company that markets OxyContin, agreed to pay more than $600 million in fines. That is the third-highest amount ever paid by a drug company in such a case.

Also, in a rare move, three executives of Purdue Pharma, including its president and it top lawyer, pleaded guilty today as individuals to misbranding charges, a criminal violation. They agreed to pay a total of $34.5 million in fines.


And in case you missed this piece:
The Blotter
OxyContin: The Giuliani Connection
By Brian Ross, Richard Esposito and R. Schwartz
ABC News

Wednesday 09 May 2007

Rudolph Giuliani and his consulting company, Giuliani Partners, have served as key advisors for the last five years to the pharmaceutical company that pled guilty today to charges it misled doctors and patients about the addiction risks of the powerful narcotic painkiller OxyContin.

Thursday, May 3, 2007

State Plans Appeal Of Court Rejection Of Prescription Info

From WMUR Manchester:
CONCORD, N.H. -- The state will appeal this week's federal court ruling that struck down New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law that makes doctors' prescription-writing habits confidential.

Drug companies use the prescription information to target particular doctors and tailor sales pitches to each one, a practice known as 'detailing.'

In announcing her intent Thursday to appeal the ruling, state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said the law protects physician prescription information from being used for marketing, thereby protecting doctor-patient relationships and the health and safety of patients while also helping containing health care costs.

'The Prescription Information Law protects the state's interests and the interests of New Hampshire's physicians and citizens, which strongly outweigh the pharmaceutical industry's interest in increased profits,' she said.

The law has been on the books since June 30, 2006. It made New Hampshire the first state to try to block pharmaceutical companies' hard-sell pitches by restricting access to information that identifies doctors and other prescribers.


I am sympathetic to the law's stated objectives, and have always been somewhat dubious about the foundations of commercial/corporate free speech. Sounds like an interesting case on appeal.