One of the biggest problems with american health care is the “overtreatment” of certain conditions, and Edwards might have a plan to improve the situation.
“The excessive costs of prescription drugs are straining family budgets and contributing to runaway health care costs,” Edwards said at the start of a seven-day campaign tour of the early-voting states of New Hampshire and Iowa.
“With such aggressive and often misleading drug company marketing, it’s too easy for advertising — instead of doctors or proven results — to influence families’ health decisions,” Edwards’ campaign quoted him as saying.
Drug advertising revenues had quadrupled to over $4 billion a year in the 10 years since rules were relaxed to allow firms to advertise medicines directly to consumers, he said. But the FDA had reviewed only a fraction of the ads, Edwards added.
The Edwards plan would institute a two-year delay on consumer advertising of all new drugs, and require FDA approval before drug companies launch major ad campaigns.
Firms would also be required to disclose more information about side effects and comparisons of drugs against placebos and alternatives.
It is good to see some presidential candidates are looking at real issues and real solutions and not just talking about Jack Bauer.
The entire article can be seen here
Pingback: John Edwards gets something right | Political news - democrats republicans socialists greens liberals conservatives
in a twist, I say that
“With such aggressive and often misleading medical malpractice litigation techniques, it’s too easy for lawyers— instead of doctors or proven results — to influence juries’ tort decisions”
More Dodd, less Edwards, please.
The med-mal field wouldn’t exist if the AMA had a decent sunshine policy that put patient’s rights before MD’s career security.
I agree Jim. MD records and stats should be published just like Tom Brady’s.
…I’m picking up you sarcasm.
In a study done a couple of years ago in New Jersey, it was discovered that over 60% of malpractice judgments were rendered against repeat offenders. That is, against doctors who were previously found guilty of malpractice. In contrast, only 10% of doctors who made more than 4 malpractice errors were disciplined by the state medical board.
The same study concluded that the spike in premiums had little-to-nothing to do with malpractice claims, and everything to do with the state of the investment markets. Doctors underwrite the investment decisions of their insurance companies, and patients pay for it.
Repeated investigations continually bear out the fact that damage awards in these cases are not “random jackpots.” Here’s an old one. Nothing’s changed.
Try to avoid constructing straw men. I never implied that patient-specific information should be made public. But people have a right to know if their doctor is a “repeat” offender, and they shouldn’t have to dig to discover that. And they should also be able to count on state medical boards to protect their interests, at the very least by making that information public if not by actually sanctioning the guilty parties.
For some reason the links aren’t showing up. I’ll try again:
Older (1992) story
Insurance study.