May 25th, 2010 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
Like Ezra Klein, smart people keep saying foolish things about the health insurance business. This time it’s a pair of bloggers talking about the largest expense that health insurers face — their “medical loss ratio.”
According to Richard Dale at the Venture Cyclist:
[W]hy do they call it Medical Loss Ratio? Why is looking after me (or you) called “Medical Loss,” when the whole point of a healthcare system is to look after me (or you)?
(Sigh.)
Alan Katz, one of the leading health insurance bloggers, surprisingly links to this with approval, saying “words matter.” The problem? The word “loss” is probably one of the four oldest words in the insurance industry. I’d say the others are probably “premium,” “commission,” and “profit.” Should we start outlawing these words, too? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
May 20th, 2010 by David Kroll, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Book Reviews, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
This is going to be a quick welcome to Deborah Blum who has just moved her blog, Speakeasy Science, to ScienceBlogs.
Why quick?
Because I am only 22 pages away from finishing her latest book, The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York.
This engaging tale of the race of science and medicine against chemical poisonings for profit and punishment features the true story of NYC chief medical examiner Charles Norris and toxicologist Alexander Gettler.
Of course, the other actors are arsenic, methanol, chloroform, thallium, and radium, among others. In the teens through the mid-1930s, long before benchtop atomic absorption spectrophotometry and LC/MS instruments, Norris and Gettler devised methods to detect poisons in human tissues with high sensitivity. These advances led to the prosecution of some, the absolution of the wrongly-accused, and revealed that our own government poisoned citizens who dared to challenge Prohibition. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Terra Sigillata*
January 4th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
2 Comments »
I was a little surprised by a recent reader comment suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are no different than tobacco manufacturers. While I am strongly opposed to misleading pharmaceutical marketing tactics, the bottom line is that most drugs have a legitimate therapeutic value. Tobacco, on the other hand, is a known carcinogen with no medical value that I can think of. This comparison, however, brought into focus a common underlying assumption: that for-profit companies are inherently less ethical than non-profit and academic centers.
I’d like to question the tendency to absolve academic centers of any possible wrongdoing on the basis of their educational reputation or non-profit status. Of course, financial gain is not the only motivator behind endeavors, initiatives, and behaviors – though it may be the easiest to measure.
As a medical student I witnessed a sad example of academic misbehavior. Senior residents in the department of plastic surgery were performing liposuction procedures after hours for cash. When a patient experienced an infectious complication from a thigh liposuction procedure, an investigation ensued. The residents claimed to be putting the cash into the residency fund, to be used to support travel, lodging and participation in annual assemblies – therefore exonerating themselves of wrong-doing.
It is unclear if the department chair was fully aware of what the residents were up to, though he was reprimanded, terminated, and ended up teaching at another institution. The plastic surgery department lost its accreditation, and all of the residents had to finish their training elsewhere. As for me, I lost my mentor (the department chair) and ended up not pursuing a career in surgery. There certainly was a lot of fall out from that debacle on all sides.
A case of academic double standards was highlighted recently by Dr. George Lundberg in a Medscape editorial where journal editors claimed that continuing medical education (CME) courses should never be sponsored by for-profit companies. Meanwhile the journal accepted advertising from these same companies:
…The JAMA editors who wrote in 2008: “…providers of continuing medical education courses should not condone or tolerate for-profit companies…providing funding or sponsorship for medical education programs….” This is from a publication that, for more than 100 years, has been supported primarily by advertising revenue, mostly pharmaceutical. The editors will say “yes, but we follow rules to prevent bias or improper influence.” True. So do we, a for-profit company, follow rules that prevent bias and improper influence.
On the positive side, there are many examples of for-profit companies who cultivate a culture of environmental responsibility and charity – Ben & Jerry’s, SC Johnson, and Patagonia come to mind. And let’s not forget the foundations created by Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet and many others thanks to overflow from for-profit endeavors.
In the end, conflicts of interest, hidden agendas, and secret quid pro quos are a matter of individual character and corporate culture. The people who build a company (or a country) have more to do with its behaviors and processes than the simple label “for profit” or “non profit” or any assumptions made at such a superficial level.
We are all biased in many ways, both consciously and unconsciously. The best we can do is to strive for transparency. It may be best to judge each entity and/or individual by their degree of transparency rather than profit status, academic status, or subject matter expertise. For-profit companies can be highly ethical, and academic centers can be rife with undisclosed conflicts and questionable behaviors.
Healthcare organizations should not avoid or incur scrutiny based on their profit status alone. Bias comes in many forms – and the best we can do is work for the good of others in full knowledge of the influences around us.
