<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: All Eyes on the House: Will The Fox Be Guarding the Hen House?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/</link>
	<description>The Ultimate Massachusetts Health Care Insider Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:02:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Healthy Blog &#187; Cost/Quality Bill Progresses through the House</title>
		<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/#comment-1851</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Healthy Blog &#187; Cost/Quality Bill Progresses through the House]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1733#comment-1851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] The House also rejected an amendment to strengthen the provision addressing pharmaceutical gifts to health care providers. Representative Malia provided amazing leadership and wonderful words on this priority of HCFA and the MA Prescription Reform coalition, as did co-sponsors of the bill, including: Representatives Callahan, D’Amico, Eldridge, Kocot, Provost, Smizik and Story. Though the House acknowledged the conflict of interest created by gifts, they opted to rely on industry to self-regulate and self-police their gift-giving practices, a tactic that has proven for years to be inadequate in addressing this driver of costs and threat to patient safety (see blog: Will the Fox Be Guarding the Hen House?). [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The House also rejected an amendment to strengthen the provision addressing pharmaceutical gifts to health care providers. Representative Malia provided amazing leadership and wonderful words on this priority of HCFA and the MA Prescription Reform coalition, as did co-sponsors of the bill, including: Representatives Callahan, D’Amico, Eldridge, Kocot, Provost, Smizik and Story. Though the House acknowledged the conflict of interest created by gifts, they opted to rely on industry to self-regulate and self-police their gift-giving practices, a tactic that has proven for years to be inadequate in addressing this driver of costs and threat to patient safety (see blog: Will the Fox Be Guarding the Hen House?). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Healthy Blog &#187; House Moves Cost and Quality Legislation To Floor</title>
		<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/#comment-1850</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Healthy Blog &#187; House Moves Cost and Quality Legislation To Floor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1733#comment-1850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] under their own codes of ethics. We previously commented on the inadequacies of this approach (blog: Will the Fox Be Guarding the Hen House?), and hope the House can strengthen the language on the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] under their own codes of ethics. We previously commented on the inadequacies of this approach (blog: Will the Fox Be Guarding the Hen House?), and hope the House can strengthen the language on the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Stein</title>
		<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/#comment-1849</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Stein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1733#comment-1849</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is bunk.  I prescribe medicine based on the best information available to me fromevery source I can tap.  I listen to both sides argue about controls on gifts to prescribers but never the buying and selling of politicians.  Our practice gives the pens and pads to churches, samples go to patients who cannot afford their meds (buy a month, get a month free) and who are desperate to pay for their $4 prescriptions and their $4 gasoline.  Why not just eliminate the business tax break on sales and promotion as business costs and let pharma decide how it spends its money.  Pharma companies are designed to make profits.  Oil companies are making obscene profits but no one would think of telling them how to spend their profits.  How about some rational healthcare policy?  Last I looked I was in the private practice of medicine.  If you want to tell me when and how I practice and pay me for the care I deliver I will listen to you.  As of now, I give away my time to treat the indigent and government won&#039;t even provide medications to my uninsured and underinsured patients.  Yet your first targets are pens and paper? Get real!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is bunk.  I prescribe medicine based on the best information available to me fromevery source I can tap.  I listen to both sides argue about controls on gifts to prescribers but never the buying and selling of politicians.  Our practice gives the pens and pads to churches, samples go to patients who cannot afford their meds (buy a month, get a month free) and who are desperate to pay for their $4 prescriptions and their $4 gasoline.  Why not just eliminate the business tax break on sales and promotion as business costs and let pharma decide how it spends its money.  Pharma companies are designed to make profits.  Oil companies are making obscene profits but no one would think of telling them how to spend their profits.  How about some rational healthcare policy?  Last I looked I was in the private practice of medicine.  If you want to tell me when and how I practice and pay me for the care I deliver I will listen to you.  As of now, I give away my time to treat the indigent and government won&#8217;t even provide medications to my uninsured and underinsured patients.  Yet your first targets are pens and paper? Get real!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Kaplan Howe</title>
		<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/#comment-1848</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lisa Kaplan Howe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1733#comment-1848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Butler,

In no way is the gift ban intended to target the promotional products industry.  This is a matter of improving patient care and controlling costs, plain and simple.

Gifts of all sizes impact prescribing decisions and patients suffer as a result.  Numerous studies have found that even promotional products impact prescribing decisions.  They serve as a reminder, or constant commercial (far from gentle), in the provider&#039;s line of sight day after day, driving up name recognition.  The continuous provision of these gifts also creates a friendship and sense of reciprocity.  Doctors are not immune to this subtle influence as they themselves recognize.  A survey published in the American Journal of Medicine found that 84% of doctors recognize the influence of gifts.  As does the pharmaceutical industry.  They give these gifts, not out of charity, but because they increase their bottom line.  If they weren&#039;t influential, they wouldn&#039;t be given.

Nobody wants to see doctors going without hand soap.  However, providers can and should purchase these items themselves.  There is no need for them to come from the pharmaceutical industry or include ads.

Certainly the prevalence of direct-to-consumer ads is also concerning and must be addressed.  Unfortunately, that is not a problem our state leaders can take action on.  It must be addressed on the federal level.  However, direct-to-consumer marketing and gifts to physicians go hand-in-hand.  Drug companies coordinate the two types of advertising to make sure that providers are &quot;cued&quot; up to prescribe the drugs their patients are requesting.

We do not want to see the promotional products industry suffer and I hope you will be able to supplement any loss you face by working with other industries.  However, the state must take action to protect patient care and to preserve access to health care.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Butler,</p>
<p>In no way is the gift ban intended to target the promotional products industry.  This is a matter of improving patient care and controlling costs, plain and simple.</p>
<p>Gifts of all sizes impact prescribing decisions and patients suffer as a result.  Numerous studies have found that even promotional products impact prescribing decisions.  They serve as a reminder, or constant commercial (far from gentle), in the provider&#8217;s line of sight day after day, driving up name recognition.  The continuous provision of these gifts also creates a friendship and sense of reciprocity.  Doctors are not immune to this subtle influence as they themselves recognize.  A survey published in the American Journal of Medicine found that 84% of doctors recognize the influence of gifts.  As does the pharmaceutical industry.  They give these gifts, not out of charity, but because they increase their bottom line.  If they weren&#8217;t influential, they wouldn&#8217;t be given.</p>
<p>Nobody wants to see doctors going without hand soap.  However, providers can and should purchase these items themselves.  There is no need for them to come from the pharmaceutical industry or include ads.</p>
<p>Certainly the prevalence of direct-to-consumer ads is also concerning and must be addressed.  Unfortunately, that is not a problem our state leaders can take action on.  It must be addressed on the federal level.  However, direct-to-consumer marketing and gifts to physicians go hand-in-hand.  Drug companies coordinate the two types of advertising to make sure that providers are &#8220;cued&#8221; up to prescribe the drugs their patients are requesting.</p>
<p>We do not want to see the promotional products industry suffer and I hope you will be able to supplement any loss you face by working with other industries.  However, the state must take action to protect patient care and to preserve access to health care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Butler</title>
		<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/#comment-1847</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Butler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1733#comment-1847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Ms. Howe,

While we all agree that health care costs need to be controlled, there is an apparent and obvious witch hunt directed towards the lowest rung on the proverbial totem pole - the promotional products industry.  Promotional giveaways to doctors account for less than 10% of the overall marketing and advertising budgets of drug companies.  Yet, the promotional products industry is regrettably the recipient of 90% of the grief and ridicule and is the fall guy for today&#039;s high health care costs.  What about the plethora of drug ads on all major television networks?  have you ever watched the nightly network news programs?  Drug commercials are all that are shown!  What about the countless full page ads in every well known magazine that promotes prescription drug brands?  Where is the legislative pressure to curtail these &quot;excessive&quot; spending practices of drug companies?

My company produces medically relevant hand care products for drug company promotions.  Our bottles of liquid hand soaps and antiseptic hand rinses are of obvious benefit to the patient and the practice of medicine.  PromoSoap pioneered this successful product line since the early 90&#039;s.  This has become our major source of revenue.  A full and complete ban of all promotional products will put dozens of my employees on the unemployment line.  Is this the unintended result of a no-compromise,unforgiving, total ban of promo products?

The day that our politicians stop using promotional products to promote their own election chances is the day drug companies should stop using promotional items as gentle brand reminders as well.  Until then - stop whipping the promotional products industry as the bad guys.

Tighten things up.  I&#039;m all for it.  But let&#039;s be realistic.  Common sense and logic should reign.  Is there really a benefit to outlawing a private labeled bottle of hand soap intended for medical use?  I think not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Ms. Howe,</p>
<p>While we all agree that health care costs need to be controlled, there is an apparent and obvious witch hunt directed towards the lowest rung on the proverbial totem pole &#8211; the promotional products industry.  Promotional giveaways to doctors account for less than 10% of the overall marketing and advertising budgets of drug companies.  Yet, the promotional products industry is regrettably the recipient of 90% of the grief and ridicule and is the fall guy for today&#8217;s high health care costs.  What about the plethora of drug ads on all major television networks?  have you ever watched the nightly network news programs?  Drug commercials are all that are shown!  What about the countless full page ads in every well known magazine that promotes prescription drug brands?  Where is the legislative pressure to curtail these &#8220;excessive&#8221; spending practices of drug companies?</p>
<p>My company produces medically relevant hand care products for drug company promotions.  Our bottles of liquid hand soaps and antiseptic hand rinses are of obvious benefit to the patient and the practice of medicine.  PromoSoap pioneered this successful product line since the early 90&#8242;s.  This has become our major source of revenue.  A full and complete ban of all promotional products will put dozens of my employees on the unemployment line.  Is this the unintended result of a no-compromise,unforgiving, total ban of promo products?</p>
<p>The day that our politicians stop using promotional products to promote their own election chances is the day drug companies should stop using promotional items as gentle brand reminders as well.  Until then &#8211; stop whipping the promotional products industry as the bad guys.</p>
<p>Tighten things up.  I&#8217;m all for it.  But let&#8217;s be realistic.  Common sense and logic should reign.  Is there really a benefit to outlawing a private labeled bottle of hand soap intended for medical use?  I think not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prescription Project &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Health Care for All to State House: Keep the gift ban</title>
		<link>http://blog.hcfama.org/2008/07/08/all-eyes-on-the-house-will-the-fox-being-guarding-the-hen-house/#comment-1846</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Prescription Project &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Health Care for All to State House: Keep the gift ban]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1733#comment-1846</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Our Fellow coalitioneers over at Health Care for All have a good post on the Massachusetts pharma gift ban as we await word on whether House lawmakers will include the section in its recommended version of the health care cost containment bill being finalized now.  Check it out here.  [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Our Fellow coalitioneers over at Health Care for All have a good post on the Massachusetts pharma gift ban as we await word on whether House lawmakers will include the section in its recommended version of the health care cost containment bill being finalized now.  Check it out here.  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

