Archive for October, 2008
By Rachel
The role that pharma companies and communications agencies acting on their behalf play in medical education has been much debated. I agree we need to look at the level of influence pharma companies have over physician education and prescribing decisions. However, as long as pharma companies are transparent in their communications and provide resources that are balanced and fair, it seems to be that their role is a crucial one, especially in an environment where funding for education is limited.
One advance in communications that plays out well for balanced, un-biased information sharing is the Social Web (i.e. the application of the World Wide Web that facilitate many-to-many conversations, debate and information sharing). We are already seeing websites springing up where physicians can share their experiences, ask colleagues questions about clinical decisions, take part in educational webinars, and read peer-reviewed articles rated by fellow medical professionals. Perhaps this is the way forward and pharma companies should be investing their resources in developing online platforms for these two-way dialogues. Anything that is clearly promotional, with little educational content, will be quickly shunned. I know this is a challenging area for pharma companies due to the lack of guidance from regulatory bodies. However, with careful consideration and strict operating protocols, there can be clear advantages for those willing to launch in.
October 28th, 2008
By Shannon
With news of our nation’s financial woes dominating headlines, many Americans (me included) probably get an uneasy stomach just watching the evening news. A struggling economy ultimately brings the risk of job uncertainty for many in the workforce. But an interesting article from ABC News reports that job downsizing during difficult economic times has the potential to be fatal to one’s health.
While the news itself may not be startling – the financial and emotional hardships associated with job loss are difficult for most – the research cited in the ABC News piece remains compelling. A Finnish study conducted between 1991-1995 (a period of severe economic downturn in that country) found that there was a five-fold increase in the risk of death from heart attacks apparent in the first four years after major downsizing.
Staggering findings as the U.S. remains in the early stages of what might shape out to be a considerable economic crisis of our own. But with findings like these, what are the learnings to be gained?
Dr. Nortin Hadler, the author of the ABC News piece, contends that we need a “soft landing” for the job displaced. He urges employers to analyze options like shared jobs, reduced workdays and transition assistance to help soften the impact of job displacement, especially for aging employees.
I agree with Dr. Hadler’s advice in the piece and think it is timely guidance for companies experiencing the hardships of the financial crunch. As employers begin to evaluate the need to make changes in the size and scope of their own workforces, it is a worthwhile exercise to consider if there are alternatives to the harsh practice of eliminating positions outright. While job cuts are inevitable for many, the flexibility that technology provides today’s workforce leaves employers with alternatives towards slashing positions outright. With American workers already facing stress resulting from the credit crisis and mortgage meltdown, it’s no surprise that layering in job loss has the potential to provide fatal results.
What do you think? How can employers better address the issue of downsizing to remain mindful of their employees’ well-being during tough economic times?
October 24th, 2008
By Jackie
With November 4th fast approaching, American voters are spending the final weeks of October sifting through each presidential candidate’s proposal to determine the potential personal and societal impact of each. Given the current state of the economy, rising healthcare costs, gas prices and the war on Iraq, Americans clearly have a lot on their minds. As each candidate’s policy offers a slightly different recipe for success, it’s up to the American voter to decipher the pros and cons of each proposal.
Given our interest and passion for healthcare, we’ve taken an opportunity to examine the basic healthcare reform policies for both Senator McCain and Senator Obama. While both presidential hopefuls ultimately share similar objectives, their approaches and methodologies to achieving each goal differ drastically.
At the most fundamental level, Senator Obama believes healthcare is an American right. He is an advocate for “universal healthcare,” supporting a plan that would provide health insurance coverage to each and every American citizen through both public and private means. Senator Obama’s plan mandates that all children have healthcare coverage and requires that employers offer employee health benefits or contribute to the cost of a new public program. Albeit expensive, his “cure for an ailing healthcare system” aims to guarantee quality, affordability and portability of health coverage for every American.
Conversely, Senator McCain feels healthcare is an American responsibility. Opposed to federally-mandated universal coverage, Senator McCain believes competition will help to improve the quality of health insurance. He supports a plan that provides Americans with a variety of insurance choices, nationwide and across state lines, enabling families to take control of their healthcare costs. He proposes tax credits of $2,500 and $5,000 that would help families to pay for coverage. Emphasizing personal accountability, Senator McCain’s plan essentially makes each and every American responsible for his/her own healthcare coverage.
So there you have it. Something for each American voter to ponder before hitting the polls – is healthcare a right or a responsibility? It certainly holds no place in the U.S. Bill of Rights. But with more than 42 million U.S. residents lacking insurance, perhaps we do need a stronger governmental intervention. At any rate, we leave it up to the American public now to figure out which policy may best reshape a U.S. healthcare system in need of some TLC itself.
October 21st, 2008
Rachel
The EU Commission recently announced it would allow pharmaceutical companies to play a greater role in providing patients with information on diseases and treatments. In response to this, Which? – the UK independent consumer rights charity – has launched a drive to maintain the current ban on pharmaceutical companies promoting their prescription-only medicines directly to the consumer. But is the Which? campaign really the best for patients? Patients can already easily search online for information on medicines and gain access to websites intended for either healthcare professionals or US consumers. It seems ironic that the manufacturers of treatment are not allowed to communicate directly with the people who are taking their products in the EU.
It would be counter productive and ineffective to try and control or stifle information that is already available to the public. Maybe the EU Commission is right to consider relaxing the laws around direct-to-consumer advertising because they realise they are losing a battle to stop information getting out?
We should not be looking to overcome the EU regulation, but rather work alongside the EU Commission to educate and inform. If consumers want information on pharmaceuticals, they will no doubt find it. Anyone who tries to stifle or stop that information being published risks a potential backlash from consumers.
In today’s Internet-centric world, digital media communications can afford companies and regulatory bodies opportunities to ensure that information is communicated correctly, coherently and informatively. Most importantly, in a responsible fashion. As long as the pharmaceutical industry provides the information in a balanced and non-promotional way, it can take an active role in encouraging patients to learn about the particular condition and highlight relevant treatments for it.
October 20th, 2008
By Anna
The news of the German farmer who has received the world’s first complete double arm transplant really makes me marvel at the wonders of modern medicine. See the whole story here.
Here’s a guy who has been living without arms for the past 6 years. Now he’s suddenly been given someone else’s arms. Surely, the transplant will feel quite alien to start with? Nonetheless, the patient, Karl Merk, is reported to be over the moon and a little overwhelmed, even after the initial two months following his operation. But will he still feel the same further down the line?
Doctors are saying that he’s already able to turn lights on and off as well as open doors; his ultimate goals are to eat and dress himself — and ride a motorcycle. However, doctor’s have stressed that it can take up to two years for him to be able to use his hands properly again and he’ll need to rely other people’s help and an intensive program of physiotherapy, electric stimulation and counselling.
It is amazing that with medical advances doctors are able to ‘reconnect’ the nerves and re-establish blood flow in an arm, face, hands, etc. What will they be able to do next?
There’s been a lot of talk in the last few years about the first face transplant, the first hand transplant, where the patient later had the hand removed as he just couldn’t get used to using someone else’s hand. There’s always going to be a risk of medical rejection, but surely emotional rejection also needs a place in any transplant story?
We are potentially wasting scarce resources by performing these kinds of transplants, which can later be rejected by the patient on emotional grounds. If we are to continue in this vein we need to ensure appropriate emotional support and counselling is given to the patient to help overcome any potential rejection.
October 10th, 2008
By Anna
The latest issue of Business Week (13th October 08, page 16) included the news that a Manchester-based private dentist, Lance Knight, has started practising in a local Sainsbury’s (one of the top three supermarket chains in the UK). The news was also covered by a number of UK national newspapers, including the Guardian a few weeks ago. According to Dr. Knight he will not be charging over the standard NHS rate, and yet one has to wonder if this is the right way to reach patients?
The UK has always suffered from a shortage of NHS dentists and while this seems a novel way to address at least the accessibility to good dental treatment, patients need to decide whether it is the right way for them. At the same time the NHS needs to find a way to address the shortage. This shortage, which is said to be due to the lack of encouragement for a career in dentistry, which is seen as the less attractive corner of working within the NHS. The time of NHS dentists is also regulated, which means that they often get to spend only very little time with their patients.
More and more dentists are taking the decision to only practice privately, often leaving those patients that cannot afford to go private out in the cold. While I agree that this needs to be addressed, I’m still unsure as to whether operating in your local supermarket aisle is the right way to go?
Additionally, there’s been a real trend in recent months for supermarkets to diversify, Tesco (Sainsbury’s biggest competitor) has branched out into pharmacies, opticians, insurance and so on. It looks like Sainsbury’s is now following that trend. So, I have to wonder, will I be able to have my appendix removed during my weekly shopping trip?
October 7th, 2008
