Keeping America Safe From Blackguards, Rascals and Knaves

The US Senate is looking at a bill that would force pharmaceutical companies to disclose any payments or gifts they make to doctors.

Apparently a few Senators are upset that physicians might prescribe medications for patients not just because they are effective, but also because the docs want to reward Big Pharma for sending over a baksheesh, or in the eyes of the Senate a large envelope stuffed with unmarked bills. Hey, I'm all in favor of an open policy when it comes to informing patients of why we recommend certain treatments. If a company is paying me to place patients on a clinical trial I am obligated to tell them of this arrangement. Then they can decide themselves whether or not they wish to participate in the study.

The bill, said Sen Grassley, is needed because "right now the public has no way to know whether a doctor's been given money that might affect prescribing habits".

He added that "the bill is about letting the sun shine in so that the public can know. Whether it's dinner at a restaurant or tens of thousands of dollars or more in fees and travel, patients shouldn't be in the dark about whether their doctors are getting money from drug and device makers." This view was echoed by Sen Kohl, who noted that at a hearing in June, the pharmaceutical industry told the Aging Committee "that they believe their practices are above-board. If that is the case, full disclosure will only serve to prove them right. If that is not the case, [it] will bring their influence-peddling out from the shadows."

God bless these keepers of truth, justice and the American way, saving our country from the evil practices of unscrupulous doctors out to make a quick buck at the expense of the vim and vigor or our fair citizenry. Just for the record, how much dough are we talking about here?

The news was welcomed by the Prescription Project, which says its aim is to end the influence of marketing on physician prescribing. Executive director Robert Restuccia, claimed that the pharmaceutical industry spends $29 billion in marketing to physicians each year "and the often-undisclosed financial relationships have been proven to undermine the quality of health care and increase costs".

29 billion - now that's a pile of shekels. Maybe if Big Pharma knew it had to report every free trip, every baseball ticket, even every cup of coffee it bought a congressman - excuse me, a physician - maybe it would spend less on marketing, thus strengthening health care and decreasing costs, just like Superman. This would save billions, wouldn't it? Oh, those crooked bastards! If I wasn't such a sweetheart I would dial me up right now and give myself a tongue-lashing for daring to let a drug company pay for my chèvre chaud sur toast et sa salade.

29 billion enchiladas...that's outrageous. Just for comparison, I wonder how much money this country spends each year suing every conceivable violator of mankind's right to immortality, if not unfettered bliss?

According to PRI's [Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think tank] calculation, the total annual accounting costs of the U.S. tort liability system is $865.37 billion. To put the annual social cost of the U.S. tort system into perspective, it is equivalent to an 8-percent tax on consumption, a 13-percent tax on wages, the combined annual output of all six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), or the total annual sales of the U.S. restaurant industry. The annual price tag, or "tort tax," for a family of four in terms of costs and foregone benefits is $9,827.

Oh. Was that 865 billion dollars, or am I having a delayed reaction to the tuna surprise I ate for lunch? Well, anything worth doing is worth doing to the maximum, especially if you're defending the little guy from the Darth Vaders of the world.

Maybe if we not only shielded doctors from Big Pharma's Mega-Hypno-Influence-Peddling Ray Guns but forbade them from receiving any payment for their work we could guarantee the estimable men and women of America that the care and advice they receive is absolutely guaranteed to be free from conflict of interest.

I hereby ask the Senate to consider this proposal. I shall call it the "Moratorium on Brains" Act.

Meanwhile, the number of medical oncologists needed in this country is projected to be short by 3,800 over the next thirteen years. File this under "Your Government at Work."