Why Doctors Take Money from Pharmaceutical Companies

Massive Global Drug Company Novartis Paid $678M to Settle Charges from the US Federal Government.

The Charges Were Regarding Illegal Payments and Kickbacks to Doctors that Were Thinly-Veiled as 'Speaker Fees' and Fancy Dinners.

Why Where the Doctors Not Held Accountable and What Does This Say About a Doctor's Mentality on Money?

Learn the Psychology of Doctors and Money.

Understand How It Leads to Counterproductive Relationships Between Physicians and Drug Companies, Which Can Compromise the #1 Rule in Medicine: The Patient Comes First, Always.

Sources:

AHealthcareZ is 200+ Healthcare Finance Educational Videos.

AHealthcareZ Viewers Include: Employee Benefits Professionals, HR, CFOs, Insurance Brokers, Benefits Consultants, Doctors and Nurses in Leadership Roles, Hospital and Health System Administrators, Health Insurance Carrier and PBM Professionals, Pharma and Med Device Professionals, Academic Professors and Students in Healthcare Administration and Public Health.

90,000+ Views Per Month Across All Platforms.

Visit AHealthcareZ.com to Subscribe to the Healthcare Finance Video Newsletter.

#HealthcareCosts #PrescriptionCosts #PharmaceuticalSales

[EmpoweringPerson]

Relevant information, keep up good work. I have subscribed your channel.

[Anilkumar-fbkw]

Okay sir you may be correct in your view.
But see doctors will never go to each and every pharma: company and beg for commission. So how come the manufacturing companies been exempted from this crime?? They are the one who pay cash for their business.
No patient exists for medicine manufacturing companies, whole salers, distributors, retailers, advertisement companies, hotels, resort companies.
They all have only profits, projects, , planning. . . but no patient relation.
But doctor's life is patient care, diagnosis of disease and cure

[toniwade]

Who are you to question what someone "needs" to drive??? That's crazy! 😂😲

[galaxy]

Your analysis of this case is flawed on several fronts. Firstly, you are incorrectly basing your analysis on what took place between 2002 and 2011 and extrapolating it to present day educational activities by Pharmaceutical companies. What took place some 10 - 19 years ago is being incorrectly applied that it is still taking place today. This is certainly and clearly incorrect. Pharma companies are highly regulated and (at least all major companies) incorporate ethics, compliance, regulatory, medical, and legal teams monitor all educational activities sponsored by these companies. Secondly, you are pointing out three current major medications sold by Novartis However, none of these products were on the market in 2002 and two of the three were only introduced no earlier than 2010. What brands were subject to the violation identified in the violation and ultimate fine? Your video implies that Novartis was promoting these brands irresponsibly when essentially they were not on the market during that time. Third, pharma companies generally do not engage 20-30 year old physicians fresh out of their residencies or fellowship programs as speakers for educational events. During this time in their career, their disease-state experience and ability to speak in front of an audience of seasoned healthcare professionals as an "expert" at an education event is much more limited. It could be considered similar to an MBA graduate speaking to a room of CEOs at a business meeting. There would be limited credibility in this situation. Most pharma companies have speakers that are highly experienced in their particular therapeutic specialty as speakers. This does not correspond to the 20-30 year olds who are "poor" and are Under Accumulators of Wealth. Thereby, your suggestion of "keeping up with the Jones'" is also flawed. The reasoning suggested in the video as to why doctors take money from drug companies make great leaps of faith. If this were a clinical trial and a primary endpoint was to use the reasonings suggested here; such as the arguments that "A" causes "B" would not pass muster in any peer-reviewed situation.