Posts Tagged ‘medications’

Doctors Paid Millions To Promote Drugs and Medical Devices

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

InjuryBoard Blog Network – September 29, 2011

AstraZeneca paid one Chicago doctor, Dr. Michael Reinstein nearly half-a-million dollars to promote Seroquel. In return, Dr. Reinstein provided AstraZeneca with a vast customer base.

The Chicago Tribune reportedthat drug companies paid more than $25 million to Illinois doctors to promote and use drugs from the pharmaceutical companies. Nearly 40 physicians got payments and perks exceeding $100,000 between 2009 and early 2011.

Eight drug companies paid more than $220 million to doctors and promotional speakers in 2010 to promote their drugs.

Starting in 2013, all drug and medical device companies must report such information to the federal government which will make these disclosures available to the public.

The most controversial payments involve consulting arrangements and promotional speeches. Drug company officials say they are funding talks that provide much-needed medical education, led by physicians who are experts in their fields. Critics say financial relationship between doctors and drug companies can threaten patient care by influencing physicians to prescribe certain medications whether or not they are the best choice.

Until 2009, drug company payments to doctors and other health professionals were closely held as trade secrets. However, some companies have begun reporting this information in advance of the 2013 requirements and pressure from lawmakers or as a condition of settling federal whistle-blower lawsuits.

ProPublica has created a database called Dollars for Docs identifying amounts paid to doctors for promotion of drugs and medical devices. Dollars for Docs has identified more than $760 million in disclosed marketing payments from only 12 companies between 2009 and the 2nd quarter of 2011.

“[The drug company payments] make it look like physicians are not impartial or are in the service of the drug companies, and can cause patients to wonder if physicians’ recommendations for treatment are being made because it was the best option based on their clinical expertise or because they have a relationship with the company,” [Hastings Center research scholar Josephine] Johnston said. “I don’t think many physicians have taken that risk (of patient distrust) as seriously as they should.”

In 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported on the millions of dollars paid by foreign drug maker AstraZeneca to doctors in order to promote its anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel. AstraZeneca paid one Chicago doctor, Dr. Michael Reinstein nearly half-a-million dollars to promote Seroquel. In return, Dr. Reinstein provided AstraZeneca with a vast customer base.

Dr. Reinstein was traveling the country telling doctors that Seroquel would help patients lose weight while the FDA was warning about Seroquel’s link to weight gain and diabetes. Even Seroquel executives called Dr. Reinstein’s conclusion that patients experienced no adverse side effects “suspect” and “hard to believe”. When faced with the choice of protecting patients or protecting profits, AstraZeneca and Dr. Reinstein chose profits over safety.

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics division also paid millions — more than $80 million — to surgeons to promote its artificial hip systems. The US Department of Justice brought charges against four medical device companies – including DePuy – in 2007, claiming the companies were using kickbacks to doctors in promoting their products. However, DePuy kept paying doctors:

  • $48 million to doctors in 2009
  • $33 million from January to September 2010

Some surgeons received more than $1 million in single year.

These payments create a direct conflict of interest between doctor and patient. Drug company sponsored research potentially taints results and doctors create the impression – and sometimes the actual effect – of choosing profits and drug company kickbacks over patient safety.

Read More:

« Return to news items


Share

Top prescribers under Senate’s microscope

Monday, October 25th, 2010

U.S. Sen Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, examined Minnesota doctors as part of his investigation into the overprescription of drugs, at great cost to Medicaid and Medicare.

Star Tribune
By Jeremy Olson
October 25, 2010

Minnesota doctors are again under the microscope of an influential U.S. senator from Iowa — this time because of concerns that expensive medications are being overprescribed at great cost to the publicly funded Medicaid and Medicare programs.

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, notified federal authorities Wednesday that he found potential examples of overprescribing after requesting lists from states, including Minnesota, of doctors who issued the most prescriptions for antipsychotic and narcotic medications in 2008 and 2009.

The most egregious example, cited in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, was a Florida doctor who wrote 96,685 prescriptions for mental health drugs in 21 months and billed the cost to the state’s Medicaid program.

Grassley’s letter mentioned no Minnesota physicians, instead pointing out doctors in Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota who prescribed many more high-cost drugs than their colleagues to poor and disabled Medicaid patients.

Grassley’s findings don’t prove fraud or overprescribing, but they could cause doctors to be removed from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, government health programs that, between them, insure some 100 million elderly, poor and disabled Americans. He urged federal authorities to pick up the trail.

“This trend is found again and again across the states,” Grassley wrote, “suggesting that top prescribers stand out not only against other providers in their state, but against the very top prescribers in those states.”

Last April, Grassley asked Minnesota authorities for a list of 10 doctors who submitted the most claims to the Department of Human Services for prescriptions of such specific antipsychotics as Seroquel and such narcotics as OxyContin.

The state provided the information in May. It also conducted its own review to determine whether the prescriptions appeared appropriate, and whether the top prescribers of antipsychotics were in appropriate specialties, such as psychiatry.

A department spokeswoman said no formal investigations were launched as a result of the review.

None of the doctors on the Minnesota list appeared to approach the excesses Grassley highlighted in other states. Several are on staff at rural mental health centers, which puts them in a position to issue more prescriptions.

Roseville psychiatrist Dr. Roger Johnson stood out on the list, issuing 1,605 prescriptions for Seroquel to patients in Minnesota’s managed-care and fee-for-service Medicaid programs in 2009 — up from 916 prescriptions in 2008. Documents show that his claims to the fee-for-service program alone approached $450,000 last year. The next closest doctor billed the state for just 688 Seroquel prescriptions last year.

Read entire article here:  http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/105576013.html?page=2&c=y

« Return to news items


Share

The Total Failure of Modern Psychiatry

Sunday, June 27th, 2010

Natural News
By David Gutierrez
June 27, 2010

Modern psychiatry went wrong when it embraced the idea that the mind should be treated with drugs, says Edward Shorter of the University of Toronto, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

Shorter studies the history of psychiatry and medicine.

Modern U.S. psychiatry has adopted a philosophy that psychological diseases arise from chemical imbalances and therefore have a very specific cluster of symptoms, he says, in spite of evidence that the difference between many so-called disorders is minimal or nonexistent. These “disorders” are then treated with expensive drugs that are no more effective than a placebo.

“Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications,” he writes.

Shorter calls for U.S. psychiatry to abandon its emphasis on “psychopathology” and instead adopt the European approach, which focuses on the symptoms and needs of people as individuals. Yet the draft of the latest edition of psychiatric diagnostic “Bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), shows that U.S. psychiatry has no intention of changing course.

“With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs,” Shorter writes.

U.S. psychiatry was not always obsessed with psychopharmacology, he notes. Its early years were marked by a psychoanalytic approach that categorized mental disorders in broad, fluid categories such as “nerves,” “melancholia” or “manic-depressive illness.” These categories sufficed because similar treatments would work for people suffering from any version thereof: lithium treated both mania and severe depression, for example, while the specific symptoms experienced by an anxious person had little influence on the therapies needed.

“Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms,” Shorter said. “A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has ‘social anxiety disorder’ or ‘seasonal affective disorder.’ … The new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches.”

In the 1950s and ’60s, a new wave of psychiatrists sought to turn away from psychoanalysis — perceiving it as focusing excessively on “unconscious psychic conflicts” — and toward a more “scientific” model instead. As a result, the DSM-III introduced the vague new categories of “major depression” and “bipolar disorder,” even though evidence suggests that there is no substantial difference between the two conditions. At the same time, “major depression” absorbed what Shorter calls two very different conditions, “neurotic depression” and “melancholia.”

“This would be like incorporating tuberculosis and mumps into the same diagnosis, simply because they are both infectious diseases,” he writes.

DSM-V only continues the trend of extending the disordered label to more and more normal people, Shorter warns: “To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline’s floundering writ large.”

For example, the new disorder of “psychosis risk syndrome” associates a whole new class of people with full-blown schizophrenia, under the logic, Shorter says, that “even if you aren’t floridly psychotic with hallucinations and delusions, eccentric behavior can nonetheless awaken the suspicion that you might someday become psychotic.” The implication, of course, is that such people should be treated with antipsychotics.

Symptoms of “psychosis risk syndrome” include such vague descriptors as “disorganized speech.”

Other new “disorders” include hoarding, mixed anxiety-depression and binge eating. “Minor neurocognitive disorder” describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while “temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria” refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper.

“DSM-V accelerates the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases,” Shorter says, “turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity.”

Read entire article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/029088_psychiatry_failure.htmll

« Return to news items


Share

“Drugging Pre-School Children: A crime against childhood—children as young as 2 prescribed powerful anti-psychotics”

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

The MetroWest Daily News
By Jacob Azerrad
June 10, 2010

In 2001, Harry Markopolos repeatedly warned the authorities about Bernie Madoff. No one listened. Only a serious downturn in the economy led to Madoff’s downfall. It’s not a Ponzi scheme, but once again, no one is listening and the red flags are everywhere. This time the victims are our very young, innocent children in the millions. Today, children as young as 2, are being prescribed powerful anti-psychotic medications. Side effects include tics, drooling, and incessant eating. Some children have gained up to 100 pounds and often progress to becoming diabetic.

Virtually nothing is known about the long-term impact of these medications. And no one seems to care. Certainly not the drug companies pushing these drugs, nor the doctors who have been coerced by the pharmaceutical industry and panicking parents alike into prescribing them. The increase in the use of anti-psychotics is directly tied to the rising incidence of one particular diagnosis, bipolar disorder. Experts estimate that the number of kids with this diagnosis is now more than one million and rising, making it more common than autism and diabetes combined. To treat it, doctors are administering medications that have yet to be approved for children. Mothers are legally medicating their two-year-olds with Risperdal to quiet their tantrums, Trileptal to stabilize their moods, and Clonidine to help them sleep.

This is not the old story about ADD or ADHD and the use of Ritalin or other approved drugs in use since the 1970′s. This is not about helping the child who fidgets and can’t concentrate in their elementary school classroom. This is about tens of thousands of energetic, outgoing, healthy, and normal 3- and 4-year-olds who just won’t sit still in Mommy and Me. It is those children who have now been diagnosed with a new and controversial diagnosis – Childhood Bipolar Disorder.

On Sept. 4, 2007, The New York Times stated that studies in the 1970s and 80s concluded bipolar disorder was rare in children, but between 1994 to 2003, there was an astounding 40-fold increase in the number of children diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

In a 2007 “60 Minutes” episode, Katie Couric focused on the short life of 4-year-old Rebecca Riley of Hull. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age 28 months, she was dead one year later from an overdose of a psychotropic drug cocktail. At one point, Couric asks Rebecca’s mother, who had been charged with her daughter’s murder, if she thought her child’s behavior might have been normal. That in fact, maybe little Rebecca was just exhibiting Terrible Two’s behavior.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the New York Times reported that 31 children who were diagnosed with Childhood Bipolar Disorder and given the drug Risperdal for tantrums died, and 1,176 suffered serious side effects.

Read entire article:  http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1602634540/Azerrad-Drugging-pre-school-children-A-crime-against-childhood

« Return to news items


Share

42 percent of all kids in foster care are taking three or more mood-altering drugs

Monday, June 7th, 2010

NewsTimes.com
By Eileen FitzGerald
June 7, 2010

Here’s just one statistic that Danbury school psychologist Charles Manos worries about: 42 percent of all kids in foster care are taking three or more mood-altering drugs.

“All kids in foster care have some story of trauma, like abuse or neglect, so we need to ask the question `How are we dealing with trauma?’” Manos asked.

Overall, children are receiving more prescriptions than ever before to treat medical, emotional and psychological problems, according to a May report from Medco Health Solutions.

More than one in four children with health insurance in the U.S., and nearly 30 percent of all children from 10 to 19, take at least one prescription to treat a chronic condition. The most substantial increases over the past nine years have been in antipsychotic, diabetes and asthma drugs, according to the Medco report.

In some cases, students take medications at home. In many cases, school nurses dispense it.

For instance, Danbury schools health coordinator Sue Levasseur said 80 middle school students receive asthma medication each day at school and another 14 to 15 children receive a psychotropic drug at school.

Part of the school system’s job is to educate parents, said Manos, who has worked in local schools for more than 30 years and also has a private practice.

“I think we have become a society that says it’s OK to medicate the symptoms of kids. Medication is easier. I think as a society we are quick to change behavior rather than understand it,” Manos said.

Behavior medications can be destructive if used improperly, he said.

“Say there is abuse or trauma, and we don’t do an adequate analysis. Then we silence the symptoms through the medications,” Manos said.

“The fact is that medication does not treat a disorder, it treats the symptoms of the manifestation, and people don’t understand that. I think there is a myth that medication treats the disorder.”

Read entire article:  http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Growing-numbers-of-children-on-medication-514614.php

« Return to news items


Share

Psychology Today: Study shows patient side effects from psychiatric drugs 20 times higher than their psychiatrists report

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Psychology Today
By Jonathan Rottenberg
April 21, 2010

A rich scientific study raises more questions than it answers.

This point is exemplified by new work conducted at Rhode Island Hospital and published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

The investigators followed 300 patients who were in ongoing outpatient treatment for depression over six weeks. The authors compared what the patient reported on a standardized scale of 31 different side effects (Toronto Side Effects Scale; TSES) with the information recorded by the treating psychiatrist on each patient’s chart. The main finding: A stunning disconnect between psychiatrists and their patients. The average number of side effects reported by the patients on the TSES was 20 times (!) higher than the number recorded by the psychiatrist. When the investigators concentrated on those side effects that were most troubling to the patient, patients still reported 2 to 3 times more side effects than were recorded by the treating psychiatrist.

The authors summarize their provocative findings in mild language, “The findings of the present study indicate that clinicians do not record in their progress notes most side effects reported on a side effects questionnaire by psychiatric outpatients receiving ongoing pharmacological treatment for depression.”

Whatever the explanation, psychiatrists appear to believe that patients are having fewer problems with medications than they truly are. It is hard to see how psychiatrists can act in the best interest of their patients if they do not know what their patients are experiencing!!!!

Read entire article:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/charting-the-depths/201004/why-dont-psychiatrists-notice-when-patients-experience-medication-si

« Return to news items


Share

New allegations against Anna Nicole Smith’s psychiatrist: Sexual relationship with patient & prescribing deadly drugs

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Emily Freedman
ABC News
September 22, 2009

The doctors of the late Anna Nicole Smith over-prescribed her a litany of medications that eventually led to her death and crossed boundaries to indulge in “unprofessional” relationships with their patient, recently unsealed affidavits obtained by ABC News allege.

The documents submitted to a Los Angeles judge in support of search warrants in the case suggest that Smith’s psychiatrist Khristine Eroshevich and internist Sandeep Kapoor had relationships “that appeared sexual in nature” with the model, who was found dead in a Florida hotel room in April 2007. The medical examiner determined that 39-year-old Smith died after an accidental drug overdose  involving nine different medications or an “acute combined drug intoxication.”

According to the affidavits, photographs were discovered in the investigation depicting Smith naked with Eroschevich in a bathtub in “intimate embraces” that “constitute unprofessional behavior.”

Read entire story: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/sexual-drug-allegations-anna-nicole-smith-doctors/story?id=8641602

« Return to news items


Share