The SF Chronicle must have known about our class yesterday, because they just came out with this article on doctors receiving money from pharmaceutical companies: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/18/MNJU1GDLRF.DTL&tsp=1
Although it mostly focuses on doctors who have been the subject of disciplinary actions, the article also mentions the increased restrictions on doctor-industry relationships (especially as concerns academics) that we touched on in class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for posting it. I just saw this also and thought how timely it was after our conversation yesterday!
Also another follow up to yesterday's discussion and primarily Patrick's question is this Health Affairs article" Oxymoron No More: The Potential Of Nonprofit Drug Companies To Deliver On The Promise Of Medicines For The Developing World" (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/4/1057)
It's written by a founder/CEO of OneWorld and talks about UC Berkeley's connection with non-profit pharma. One key thing was their discussion about funding and how they need to rely on "philantropic funders" and it's pretty unstable. Their mention of CK Prahalad reminded me of Dr. Dratler's presentation and the production of lenses by Aurolab. I wonder if there is a model that might work for drugs, although it is much more expensive to produce and requires a lot more R&D comparatively.
-Dionne
Post a Comment