The NIH’s ‘How to Become a Billionaire’ Program

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

But reform is a non-starter cause it... you guessed it... lessens those companies ability to get paid for it

reform is inherently incremental. Look at what Biden had to do with negotiating those drugs for medicare cost coverage. Theres ways to attack certain things. However, again, our system is what allows us to even provide most of these drugs to the world in the first place.

theres a reason you dont see anyone nearly as productive as the USA in this regard.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The main reason the USA has the most expensive drugs is because the USA is wealthier...and most of the research and blockbuster treaments comes out of the USA...is because of the financial incentive.

There is a real and legitimate fear that research slows down or moves elsewhere if companies aren't allowed to maximize their ability to make money. Theres a reason European countries lag the USA in Pharma research and output.

That hurts your argument because the profit motive is still there for European companies. All of them can profit off of the American market just like American drug companies do, in addition to their local markets. As you just pointed out, Roche, Bayer, Merck Group, Novo Nordisk, GSK, Novartis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, they're all making plenty of money in the American market. US drug companies have other advantages including the fact that NIH is by far the largest public funder of basic research and the US university system is the best producer and reserve of medical researchers and basic talent in the field.

The primary outcome of the US pharma system is to produce massive quantities of incredibly expensive drugs for what appears to be marginal if any net benefit to American life. Look at the opioid epidemic alone, heavily pushed by drug companies, and think about how many years of life that took from Americans. Look at drugs like Phenylephrine which is sold by the billions even though it does nothing. Look at how much doctors overprescribe chemotherapy at absolutely insane costs, even if it actually reduces quality of endlife, in part because there is a huge financial incentive to do it. Look at the overprescription of psychoactive drugs like antidepressants and ritalin, or the blood thinners that lower blood pressure without actually improving heart disease outcomes at all, or liver medications that improve test numbers but don't decrease illness days at all. Zantac that traded minor symptom improvement for increased cancer risk. Aducanumab that was approved despite showing major side effects without accomplishing any more than a placebo.

What we've bought with our system is an absolutely massive pharmacuetical industry, but we haven't gotten our money's worth in terms of better health. And that's just focusing on us Americans. When you go to a global outlook and look at the complete stagnation in new antibiotic development, the sorry state of tuberculosis drug combat, the extremely slow rate of vaccine development for such critical diseases as TB and dengue, the failure of pharmacueticals to blunt the terrible long-term impacts of respiratory and diarrheal disease.....it's just not a corporate model that appears to be me to be working.

And damn, I didn't even manage to get into the exponentially accelerating costs over time or the corrupt relationships between pharmacuetical companies, the researchers who test the drugs, and the doctors who prescribe for them.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That hurts your argument because the profit motive is still there for European companies. All of them can profit off of the American market just like American drug companies do, in addition to their local markets. As you just pointed out, Roche, Bayer, Merck Group, Novo Nordisk, GSK, Novartis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, they're all making plenty of money in the American market. US drug companies have other advantages including the fact that NIH is by far the largest public funder of basic research and the US university system is the best producer and reserve of medical researchers and basic talent in the field.

how is this hurting my argument? Its the financial incentives and the labor pool in the USA that draws talent and (a generous visa system) that keeps things within the USA

It's a global soft-power move.

The primary outcome of the US pharma system is to produce massive quantities of incredibly expensive drugs for what appears to be marginal if any net benefit to American life.

You can't just say this irresponsibly without appreciating what it takes to even get that far. You act like creating all these cancer drugs (which has been relatively quickly in the last 50 years considering there was barely decent pain medication 100 years ago) and rare disease treatments was cheap or easy. So yeah, incremental gains often accelerate. For example you can live a full and healthy life with HIV...and we know how that started.

Look at the opioid epidemic alone, heavily pushed by drug companies, and think about how many years of life that took from Americans.

Thats a prescription crisis, not a drug efficacy crisis

Look at drugs like Phenylephrine which is sold by the billions even though it does nothing.

We're talking about drugs being contraindicated beyond their initial use.

i.e. ivermectin

Look at how much doctors overprescribe chemotherapy at absolutely insane costs, even if it actually reduces quality of endlife, in part because there is a huge financial incentive to do it.

Thats a patent and licensing and prescription crisis. Thats not a drug efficacy crisis.

Look at the overprescription of psychoactive drugs like antidepressants and ritalin, or the blood thinners that lower blood pressure without actually improving heart disease outcomes at all, or liver medications that improve test numbers but don't decrease illness days at all.

OK. Lets not confuse the psych meds (which I think as an industry is LARGELY bullshyt but I dont want to get into the neuroscience blah blah blah) with statins and other homeostatic drugs that actually work but need to be regimented with a complex set of factors to offset other physiological changes.

Zantac that traded minor symptom improvement for increased cancer risk. Aducanumab that was approved despite showing major side effects without accomplishing any more than a placebo.

Didn't I say research is difficult?

What we've bought with our system is an absolutely massive pharmacuetical industry, but we haven't gotten our money's worth in terms of better health. And that's just focusing on us Americans. When you go to a global outlook and look at the complete stagnation in new antibiotic development,

TB underinvestment is real. A lot of universities have created non-profits to address this by funding grants to address the anti-biotic crisis which is itself a biological hurdle and less of an investment hurdle. You're dealing with physics at that point, not incentive.

the sorry state of tuberculosis drug combat, the extremely slow rate of vaccine development for such critical diseases as TB and dengue, the failure of pharmacueticals to blunt the terrible long-term impacts of respiratory and diarrheal disease.....it's just not a corporate model that appears to be me to be working.

I did mention in this thread how underinvestment leaves tropical and poverty linked diseases on the shelf for substandard or unrefined treatments. Thats where government is useful...to provide...INCENTIVES THROUGH EXCLUSIVE PATENTS AND FUNDING!

Governments help to address market failures but lets not act like some of these PhD's who slave away shouldn't be compensated for doing something the private sector doesn't see the RoI in looking at. Thats unfair.

And damn, I didn't even manage to get into the exponentially accelerating costs over time or the corrupt relationships between pharmacuetical companies, the researchers who test the drugs, and the doctors who prescribe for them.

PBM's and care delivery is a completely different topic.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

how is this hurting my argument? Its the financial incentives and the labor pool in the USA that draws talent and (a generous visa system) that keeps things within the USA

But that doesn't come from the pharma pricing model, that comes from massive land, resource, and geopolitical advantages enjoyed by the USA that allowed it to expand rapidly and self-sufficiently under relatively peaceful conditions while being an open door to foreign talent, at a time when everyone else either got embroiled in war and political strife, tapped out in land and resources, or overly xenophobic.

It's a global soft-power move.


You can't just say this irresponsibly without appreciating what it takes to even get that far. You act like creating all these cancer drugs (which has been relatively quickly in the last 50 years considering there was barely decent pain medication 100 years ago) and rare disease treatments was cheap or easy. So yeah, incremental gains often accelerate. For example you can live a full and healthy life with HIV...and we know how that started.


Thats a prescription crisis, not a drug efficacy crisis

We're talking about drugs being contraindicated beyond their initial use.

i.e. ivermectin


Thats a patent and licensing and prescription crisis. Thats not a drug efficacy crisis.

OK. Lets not confuse the psych meds (which I think as an industry is LARGELY bullshyt but I dont want to get into the neuroscience blah blah blah) with statins and other homeostatic drugs that actually work but need to be regimented with a complex set of factors to offset other physiological changes.

Didn't I say research is difficult?

TB underinvestment is real. A lot of universities have created non-profits to address this by funding grants to address the anti-biotic crisis which is itself a biological hurdle and less of an investment hurdle. You're dealing with physics at that point, not incentive.

I did mention in this thread how underinvestment leaves tropical and poverty linked diseases on the shelf for substandard or unrefined treatments. Thats where government is useful...to provide...INCENTIVES THROUGH EXCLUSIVE PATENTS AND FUNDING!

Governments help to address market failures but lets not act like some of these PhD's who slave away shouldn't be compensated for doing something the private sector doesn't see the RoI in looking at. Thats unfair.

PBM's and care delivery is a completely different topic.

The piles and piles of excuses you laid on ignore how the corporate financial model for drug patents, approval, pricing, and prescription help drive every one of those problems.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

But that doesn't come from the pharma pricing model, that comes from massive land, resource, and geopolitical advantages enjoyed by the USA that allowed it to expand rapidly and self-sufficiently under relatively peaceful conditions while being an open door to foreign talent, at a time when everyone else either got embroiled in war and political strife, tapped out in land and resources, or overly xenophobic.




The piles and piles of excuses you laid on ignore how the corporate financial model for drug patents, approval, pricing, and prescription help drive every one of those problems.

Some of us live in the real world and dont get to just hand wave and make sweeping irrational statements about how these drugs and treatments "dont work" or "fall short"...ok thanks for the insight and analysis about efficacy. Anything else? Nothing is perfect. I guess we can go back to nuts and berries.

You haven't remotely made a persuasive argument about why a literal handful of people who did something extremely rare in creating something extremely positive shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts by way of exclusive patents and/or large payouts.

Hackers get the same rewards for finding bugs in codes. Why when it comes to pharmacaueticals do we have to hear this same story about the same trump-card of poor people being excluded. Yes. We know. Thats why reforms have to be made to limit this, but you wont ever eliminate this disparity. You can only control it and cap its influence of price by way of access.

For example I'm on a drug now that would cost like 20k a year but because of insurance and Pharma deals I'm paying nothing for it. That came out of decades of research that failed on another drug target but works perfectly on what its treating for me. AND I've worked in this industry. YOu're approaching this with the same sort of flagrant disregard for details or nuance as a staunch critic and revolutionary cynic and not that of what is required to actually build something useful to others. It's the same Bernie-Bro excuse for politics. We have mind-blowingly successful monoclonal antibodies on the market now. Did you think that listening to your corner 20 years ago about the amount of money being spent to focus on something else would get us to this point?

It's the same argument with you. Your political and economic enemies are those who aren't revolutionary anti-capitalists and the rest of us dont know enough and can't ever do enough.

Got it. Whats your plan?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Throw the word "billionaire" out there and the same circle of critics get antsy and start sharpening their pitchforks

Hey, go study harder if you're so mad about it.

This is a public and global good. We need more of this. This is GOOD government.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Hackers get the same rewards for finding bugs in codes.

lol, if the financial model for rewarding medical advances was comparable to how hackers are rewarded for finding bugs in codes, we wouldn't have an argument here.

It's not the idea of financial reward that's at issue, it's the massive, often monopolistic control corporations are given over patents and pricing.

For example I'm on a drug now that would cost like 20k a year but because of insurance and Pharma deals I'm paying nothing for it. That came out of decades of research that failed on another drug target but works perfectly on what its treating for me. AND I've worked in this industry.

So it sounds like my insurance payments and tax dollars are paying for your medicine AND your paycheck. And the corporation got a nice cut on both ends. Damn, that really makes it look like you're objective and gonna win the argument now.

YOu're approaching this with the same sort of flagrant disregard for details or nuance as a staunch critic and revolutionary cynic and not that of what is required to actually build something useful to others. It's the same Bernie-Bro excuse for politics. We have mind-blowingly successful monoclonal antibodies on the market now. Did you think that listening to your corner 20 years ago about the amount of money being spent to focus on something else would get us to this point?

A pile of ad hominems followed by begging the question. You're assuming that "get us to this point" is objectively good and better than some other alternative point we could be at. Yet black life expectancy plateaued almost a decade ago and is now dropping rapidly. TB continues to kill millions of people every year, many young, with increasing drug resistance and no effective vaccine. We've now gone over 35 years since the last time we approved a new class of antibiotics, with the potential for superbugs resistant to every known drug continuing to grow every year.

But none of those issues are being addressed because there isn't a ton of money in Black life expectancy and TB patients and new classes of antibiotics.

Perhaps there is a different reality where health care efforts are not primarily driven by corporate needs, and money can thus be spent more efficiency to incentivize more targeted tasks?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

lol, if the financial model for rewarding medical advances was comparable to how hackers are rewarded for finding bugs in codes, we wouldn't have an argument here.

This is why philosophy majors should stay away from science topics. You don't understand how difficult this shyt is. So yes, medical advances are being rewarded for answering difficult questions and finding therapies with increasing levels of response and efficacy.

It's not the idea of financial reward that's at issue, it's the massive, often monopolistic control corporations are given over patents and pricing.

I literally said I support patent reforms for medical interventions but you can't do both. Either we offer bigger rewards with greater centralization or you reward people's efforts with patent protection. It's a globalized world we're talking about too. This isn't just USA/EU anymore. This is a competition for wit, talent, AND strength.

So it sounds like my insurance payments and tax dollars are paying for your medicine AND your paycheck. And the corporation got a nice cut on both ends. Damn, that really makes it look like you're objective and gonna win the argument now.

Considering I pay more in tax than you (safe guess) I doubt this. But thanks for this weird attempted flex?

A pile of ad hominems followed by begging the question. You're assuming that "get us to this point" is objectively good and better than some other alternative point we could be at.

Yes. This is objectively true.

Yet black life expectancy plateaued almost a decade ago and is now dropping rapidly.

I thought this was a discussion about medicines and pharmaceuticals, not policy and public health outcomes reflecting a mix of social, economic, and political factors.

TB continues to kill millions of people every year, many young, with increasing drug resistance and no effective vaccine.

ITS A BACTERIA. ITS DIFFICULT TO DO WITHOU KILLING THE PATIENT.

We've now gone over 35 years since the last time we approved a new class of antibiotics, with the potential for superbugs resistant to every known drug continuing to grow every year.

Yes, because antibiotic resistance is an exponential threat. It was fine creating broad classes of drugs but with rising threats you need targeted options that also...don't kill the patient.

Again, the easier solution to this is to kill the patient. Cancer drugs can do this just fine...unless you want better ones

But none of those issues are being addressed because there isn't a ton of money in Black life expectancy and TB patients and new classes of antibiotics.

I've already addressed this and this is getting weirdly conspiratorial

Perhaps there is a different reality where health care efforts are not primarily driven by corporate needs, and money can thus be spent more efficiency to incentivize more targeted tasks?

More generic "everything sucks" rhetoric. I too can imagine a utopia.

I dont know what "efficient spending" is.

I know that research is expensive, there can be better efforts at consolidating missions and smartly looking at options before making investments but I dont know what efficiency is.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm gonna pull out all the failed attempts to talk condescendingly about science because those were too funny.

This is why philosophy majors should stay away from science topics. You don't understand how difficult this shyt is. So yes, medical advances are being rewarded for answering difficult questions and finding therapies with increasing levels of response and efficacy.

I was a trained scientist before I pivoted to education/activism, not a philosophy major. And at one of the most renowned schools in the country on top of that. I was doing tougher science my sophomore year than you've ever seen.

If you're going to try an ad hominem, you need to make sure you're over the target.

TB continues to kill millions of people every year, many young, with increasing drug resistance and no effective vaccine.

TB is a bacteria. I already discussed this. It's not a virus.

This is where you start to hit the limit of what you're qualified to discuss.

WTF was this idiotic response? Do you really think viral diseases are easier to treat with drugs than bacterial diseases? Or are you claiming that you can't develop vaccines for bacterial diseases (like, say, tetanus, pneumococcal, meningococcal, typhoid, cholora, and anthrax)? And you want to claim that I'm the one not qualified to discuss the topic?




lol, I just saw that you edited those last two sentences out, you might have realized you were about to be caught talking complete nonsense. But your new version isn't much better.

ITS A BACTERIA. ITS DIFFICULT TO DO WITHOU KILLING THE PATIENT.

This is nonsense, bacteria are the easiest class of disease vectors to treat medically without killing the patient. What's easier to kill with pharmaceuticals than a bacteria...a virus? a parasite? a cancer cell? Your statement made zero sense.

TB is hard to kill with drugs, but because of a number of factors unique to the situation, several of which are social, not just because "it's a bacteria". Read a fukking book.

Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues

Paul Farmer has battled AIDS in rural Haiti and deadly …

www.goodreads.com

The Forgotten Plague: How the Battle Against Tuberculos…

Ryan, a physician, offers a history of the cure for tub…

www.goodreads.com

We've now gone over 35 years since the last time we approved a new class of antibiotics, with the potential for superbugs resistant to every known drug continuing to grow every year.

Yes, because antibiotic resistance is an exponential threat. It was fine creating broad classes of drugs but with rising threats you need targeted options that also...don't kill the patient.

How the fukk does that justify the fact that pharmaceutical companies spend comparatively little time and effort trying to develop new classes of antibiotics?



You need to remember, Napoleon, that your knowledge on any particular subject is far too superficial to try to get condescending in an argument. The chances that you're gonna be out of your depth is always gonna be too big a risk.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm gonna pull out all the failed attempts to talk condescendingly about science because those were too funny.

Don't stop. Humility hasn't helped you thus far.

I was a trained scientist before I pivoted to education/activism, not a philosophy major. And at one of the most renowned schools in the country on top of that. I was doing tougher science my sophomore year than you've ever seen.

you dont know the difference between nothern, southern, or western blots.

stop it fam.



I was isolating novel compounds in LCMS and designing experiments when you were rallying the troops LARPing as the neighborhood Che

If you're going to try an ad hominem, you need to make sure you're over the target.

Mr. "why do things cost things" over here

WTF was this idiotic response? Do you really think viral diseases are easier to treat with drugs than bacterial diseases? Or are you claiming that you can't develop vaccines for viruses? And you want to claim that I'm the one not qualified to discuss the topic?

Antibacterials are harder to design than anti-virals.

Again, this is an example of how institutions are trying to address this. One of my former lecturers is a major figure here: https://carb-x.org/

lol, I just saw that you edited those last two sentences out, you might have realized you were about to be caught talking complete nonsense. But your new version isn't much better.

Have you ever consulted on Pharma trials? Reviewed raw data? Educated clinical sites on end points and drug history?

No?

Don't play with me, son.

This is nonsense, bacteria are the easiest class of disease vectors to treat medically without killing the patient. What's easier to kill with pharmaceuticals than a bacteria...a virus? a parasite? a cancer cell? Your statement made zero sense.

TB is hard to kill with drugs, but because of a number of factors unique to the situation, several of which are social, not just because "it's a bacteria". Read a fukking book.

Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues

Paul Farmer has battled AIDS in rural Haiti and deadly …

www.goodreads.com

The Forgotten Plague: How the Battle Against Tuberculos…

Ryan, a physician, offers a history of the cure for tub…

www.goodreads.com

You gotta stop googling shyt you can't recall off hand. You're just arguing to argue now cause you can't recall the facts off hand. It's more than a peptidoglycan wall

How the fukk does that justify the fact that pharmaceutical companies spend comparatively little time and effort trying to develop new classes of antibiotics?

Yo. Pick a drug class already and ask some valid questions. You're just whining at this point that disease exists.

I get it. Go volunteer at a kids hospital or something.

You need to remember, Napoleon, that your knowledge on any particular subject is far too superficial to try to get condescending in an argument. The chances that you're gonna be out of your depth is always gonna be too big a risk.

You were so successful in science that you had become an activist.

Those who can't do...teach...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

"WHY DONT PHARMA COMPANIES SOLVE ALL DISEASE!!! "

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I literally said I support patent reforms for medical interventions but you can't do both. Either we offer bigger rewards with greater centralization or you reward people's efforts with patent protection.

Those aren't the only two options.

Considering I pay more in tax than you (safe guess) I doubt this. But thanks for this weird attempted flex?

Nothing to do with a "flex", I'm pointing out that the massive bill your insurance company is paying off for your drugs isn't "free", its a pharmaceutical profit that's actually paid off by the rest of us who pay tax dollars and insurance premiums.

And since you work in the industry and your paycheck apparently comes from tax dollars and insurance premiums as well, how much you make is irrelevant, because all of us who have to pay for our nation's dramatically overpriced health care system are paying for everything you have

Yes. This is objectively true.

We're "objectively" in the best of all possible worlds with the best of all possible systems. Wow, I know you work in the industry, but the hubris there is still amazing.

I thought this was a discussion about medicines and pharmaceuticals, not policy and public health outcomes reflecting a mix of social, economic, and political factors.

It's a discussion about how our system has incentivized spending a ton of money in order to produce a ton of profits for certain actors in the machine, while actively neglecting other parts of the system because they can't be so easily tied to rich people's profits.

More generic "everything sucks" rhetoric. I too can imagine a utopia.

I dont know what "efficient spending" is.

I know that research is expensive, there can be better efforts at consolidating missions and smartly looking at options before making investments but I dont know what efficiency is.

Decoupling industrial effort from "how much could I make off a patent for this?", and instead tying it to, "how much net benefit will people see from this?". That is what I mean by efficiency.

Right now, some of the greatest profits can be made by manufacturing a super-expensive cancer drug for a fairly common cancer, which might on average only add a few months of life at the cost of quality of life, but which will be paid for anyway despite the cost because insurance covers it, the doctor has been wined and dined by the pharmaceutical company, and the patient is in a desperate position. In a vacuum, the decision is understandable. But in a world where all that health care money and all that industrial development effort could have been spent on something with a MUCH larger and more meaningful impact? It's not efficient at all.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Those aren't the only two options.

Well of course not. But we're talking about whats possible in our system.

Nothing to do with a "flex", I'm pointing out that the massive bill your insurance company is paying off for your drugs isn't "free", its a pharmaceutical profit that's actually paid off by the rest of us who pay tax dollars and insurance premiums.

And since you work in the industry and your paycheck apparently comes from tax dollars and insurance premiums as well, how much you make is irrelevant, because all of us who have to pay for our nation's dramatically overpriced health care system are paying for everything you have

Yes. And taxes pay for roads and fire trucks. I love learning. we live in a society.

We're "objectively" in the best of all possible worlds with the best of all possible systems. Wow, I know you work in the industry, but the hubris there is still amazing.

Better things are better than things that are not better

ah-mazing.

It's a discussion about how our system has incentivized spending a ton of money in order to produce a ton of profits for certain actors in the machine, while actively neglecting other parts of the system because they can't be so easily tied to rich people's profits.

You haven't indicated whats wrong with making money other than generic X > Y arguments.

I've tried to address certain regions that could be reigned in or subjected for further scrutiny and you came in with some sledgehammer about ineffective drugs or how certain things haven't turned out the way we hoped. This is not a serious discussion.

Decoupling industrial effort from "how much could I make off a patent for this?", and instead tying it to, "how much net benefit will people see from this?". That is what I mean by efficiency.

Net benefit is a stupid question because in your words, certain treatments aren't effective enough.

The BEST cancer drugs may give you a few months to a few more years. And we know we have further to go. You literally said this wasn't good enough and thus reasons why we need to [insert revolutionary rhetoric].

Right now, some of the greatest profits can be made by manufacturing a super-expensive cancer drug for a fairly common cancer, which might on average only add a few months of life at the cost of quality of life,

"only"

OK

If you dont want them, just say so. They said the same thing about AIDS drugs in the 90s.

but which will be paid for anyway despite the cost because insurance covers it,

if you dont want it...just say so...

the doctor has been wined and dined by the pharmaceutical company, and the patient is in a desperate position.

Pause.

A LOT of this is illegal now and if not outright discouraged, exposed to way more transparency than before. Again, this isn't the 90s.

Physician Payments Sunshine Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Update your references broski.

In a vacuum, the decision is understandable. But in a world where all that health care money and all that industrial development effort could have been spent on something with a MUCH larger and more meaningful impact? It's not efficient at all.

What the fukk are you talking about? You dont even know what "meaningful" means as long as theres some land of Democritus tone-trolling and goalpost shifting where nothing is good enough for oyu.

Stop speaking in parables. You have no argument than "what if things were better "

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Pause.

A LOT of this is illegal now and if not outright discouraged, exposed to way more transparency than before. Again, this isn't the 90s.

Physician Payments Sunshine Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Update youre references broski.

Almost all of your response said nothing, but I had to stop and laugh at your single attempt at substance. From your link:

About​

The Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, biological and medical supplies covered by the three federal health care programs Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to collect and track all financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals and to report these data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The goal of the law is to increase the transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers and to uncover potential conflicts of interest.[1] The bill allows states to enact "additional requirements", as six states already had industry-pay disclosure laws.[2]

In 2013, the American Medical Association offered physicians training to understand the Sunshine Act.[3]

Criticism​

In 2012 it was suggested that the act may have a limited effect on prescribing and on expenditures.[7]

A 2015 opinion piece in JAMA stated that the value of transparency was beyond dispute, but "the true value of the database remains uncertain and probably too early to ascertain".[8]



So it's just a toothless transparency requirement with limited impact. Doctors are still getting influenced by Big Pharma.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Almost all of your response said nothing, but I had to stop and laugh at your single attempt at substance. From your link:

About​

The Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, biological and medical supplies covered by the three federal health care programs Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to collect and track all financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals and to report these data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The goal of the law is to increase the transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers and to uncover potential conflicts of interest.[1] The bill allows states to enact "additional requirements", as six states already had industry-pay disclosure laws.[2]

In 2013, the American Medical Association offered physicians training to understand the Sunshine Act.[3]

Criticism​

In 2012 it was suggested that the act may have a limited effect on prescribing and on expenditures.[7]

A 2015 opinion piece in JAMA stated that the value of transparency was beyond dispute, but "the true value of the database remains uncertain and probably too early to ascertain".[8]



So it's just a toothless transparency requirement with limited impact. Doctors are still getting influenced by Big Pharma.

Did you seriously learn about this from the first time I posted this?

I wasn't trying to shut you down, I'm telling you what the industry practices are. You're supposed to know this.