Letters to the Editor - Aug. 25, 2008

Direct-to-patients ads, not free pens, are the real problem

Regarding "Drug industry: No more free pens, pads or mugs" (Article, July 28): If you wanted to help our patients, we would put an end to direct-to-patient advertisements. Ever watch TV during the news programs? You always see ads for the newest and most expensive medications.

Patients then request these medications when an older, less-expensive medication would probably work just as well as the newest. The disclaimers at the end of the ads are pathetic. Then, after the patient gets the doctor to write for this newest medication, the patient has a heart attack when he or she has to pay at the pharmacy.

End direct-to-patient ads on TV, in magazines, in newspapers and on the radio. Restore the free pens.

--Rodger Stuart Orman, MD, Murphys, Calif.

Back to top

Drug industry gifts: Congress should practice what it preaches

Regarding "Drug industry: No more free pens, pads or mugs" (Article, July 28): Where's the fairness?

PhRMA says that pens, pads and a lunch can influence our decisions and what meds we write for the patients we are entrusted to care for. Congress agrees, as evidenced by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act presently being considered.

Yet at the same time, aren't drug companies giving millions to congressmen in the form of PACs? They gladly accept that money. And we are to believe that doesn't unduly influence and affect Congress' decision-making process in matters of national health care? Please.

If you need a definition of hypocrisy, just re-read that article and you'll get a clear picture.

Do away with the pens and the lunches and "stipends"? That's great, but let's see some similar regulation of political contributions given to Congress, and accepted by them, if we're really serious about avoiding undue influence and being "transparent" for the public.

I'm not holding my breath.

--Joe Johnson, MD, Cullman, Ala.

Back to top

E-prescribing cost should be borne by companies who will reap the benefit

Regarding "E-prescribers see Medicare bonus, but late adopters will face pay cut" (Article, Aug. 4): Not surprisingly, the issue of e-prescribing has been resolved with the creation of yet another expensive mandate to physicians. The burden will fall most heavily on primary care physicians, the physicians least able to afford it.

Considering that the financial benefits will accrue predominately to insurers and pharmaceutical benefit managers, one wonders why the issue of financing did not fall upon them. Certainly, insurers and PBMs could afford a 2% tax/penalty much more than small office physicians.

Undoubtedly, the prices of e-prescribing programs will increase to match any government subsidy, and physicians will have to reach into their own pockets to pay for such systems.

That this result is anything but a loss for physicians is unquestionable, and yet another deterrent to practicing medicine in America.

--Stephen Kirk, MD, Salem, N.H.

Back to top