The following is an exact transcript of NBC4's Ellie Merritt's report, exactly as it appeared on NBC4 on Monday, Feb. 7, 2011 at 6 p.m.
Anchor: Millions of dollars going from the drug company coffers into the pockets of doctors -- $300 million -- and that's just a fraction of what the drug companies are dishing out to doctors, the same doctors prescribing high-priced drugs for you.
That's straight from a new report shining a spotlight on pharmaceutical companies, their tactics, and the doctors who work for them.
NBC4's Ellie Merritt is taking a good hard look at the local doctors who made that list.
Ellie Merritt, NBC4: It's a report called Dollars For Docs and the picture it paints isn't pretty.
ProPublica, an independent, non-profit public interest group compiled reports from eight pharmaceutical companies that voluntarily released their numbers to create a database, examining just how much money big pharma is spending on doctors around the country.
The goal: share this information with patients.
We pulled the list and found the names of some Columbus docs.
Big checks from big pharma. We pulled the list of Columbus doctors and found several ranking in six figures in 2009 and 2010 from the drug companies.
According to ProPublica:
Dr. Michael Yaffee, an internist, made more than $104,000.
Dr. John Baluch, a urologist, made $121,000.
Dr. Taral Patel, an oncologist, made more than $142,000.
Dr. George Ho, a urologist, made $158,000.
Dr. Michael Chan, a psychiatrist, made more than $160,000.
Search the database link above for Central Ohio doctors.
Doctors nationwide could be getting paid millionas more. And it's just a fraction of what ProPublica Senior Reporter Charles Ornstein says the drug companies are reporting.
Ornstein: "We found the amounts of money were staggering. Nearly $300 million was spent for speaking and consulting by just these (eight) companies in less than two years."
Merritt: Spent on what, you ask?
Doctors get paid for speaking, consulting and research projects for the likes of Eli Lilly, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical and medical device companies.
It's a long list of names and big dollar signs.
The report resonated with State Rep. Nancy Garland.
Garland: "I think you have to look at each one of these on an individual basis. Is this in the best interest of the patient or are they getting paid a lot more than they should and were the studies legitimate?"
Merritt: We asked the same question. The implication, where the eyebrows get raised, is that big pharma is trying to influence doctors – our doctors. And one of them, Dr. Michael Chan, a psychiatrist for Mount Carmel, agreed to talk to us until he says he was told not to.
Dr. Chan (on voicemail): "This is Dr. Michael Chan of Mount Carmel. I apologize, but I am going to have to cancel our scheduled interview next Wednesday. I'm an employee of Mount Carmel and I was told that I should not be doing this."
Merritt: We requested interviews with each of the doctors. Not one of them was willing to share what they do for the drug companies.
We did hear from the executive director of Dr. Taral Patel's practice saying, "This is a personal decision by a physician that we do not condone. We are looking into this and will take any appropriate next steps."
So we turned to the Ohio State Medical Association.
Jason Koma, Ohio State Medical Association: "This doesn't mean that it is a 'this for that' situation."
Jason Koma is the spokesperson for the 20,000 doctors in Ohio.
Koma: "We would ask that patients or anyone not jump to any unnecessary, unfounded or untrue conclusions that that dollar amount means anything that relates to how a physician provides medical care."
Merritt (to Koma): "There are doctors getting $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 a year from drug companies. Doesn't that raise red flags?"
Koma: "I think when you look at this individual report, and individual dollar amounts next to anyone's name, whether it's a red flag, whether it's assumptions that come from it, I would ask anyone to not misconstrue that – to not think that it amounts to something other than a physician participating in genuine research projects.
"There are two sides here. Doctors share their time, knowledge and expertise. They deserved to get paid for speaking, consulting and doing legitimate medical studies."
Merritt: But the argument that the drug companies want doctors who are considered the cream of the crop, according to ProPublica, some doctors they investigated across the nation are not the best of the best.
Ornstein: "We found that there were doctors who didn't work of academic medical centers, weren't writing research papers and sometimes they didn't even have certification in the fields in which they were practicing, and yet they were earning a lot of money for educating their fellow doctors about the proper uses of companies' brand name drugs."
Merritt: So who's playing watch dog on this? We checked with the Ohio State Medical Board and payments from drug companies to doctors isn't something that is tracked or even reported to them for state medical licensing. But a new law is about to give you a clearer picture.
Merritt (to Garland): "And bottom line: transparency."
Garland: "Yes. That's what it's all about and I really think the federal law gets us there because they have to report anything over $10."
Merritt: And this isn't over yet. As you heard Rep. Garland say, big changes are expected if Washington follows through.
Under the Healthcare Reform Act, a provision requires all drug and medical device companies to reveal what they are paying physicians on an easy-to-use database.
There are a lot of things to consider when picking a doctor and ProPublica says bottom line: this is info you have the right to know.
http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/feb/07/9/monday-6-pm-how-much-big-pharma-paying-your-doctor-ar-385701/?
No comments:
Post a Comment