>>>Pharma and MD's, however, are joined at the hip here in the US. I've rarely been to see an MD without at least one pharma rep coming by to visit.
>>>Why do they do that if there is no ROI and why do the MD's spend time with them if there is no ROI?
>
>Asking leading questions is not a proof. ;-) There are lots of reasons why medical suppliers send reps to see practitioners- yes it's usually in the interest of sales, but what's wrong with that as long as MDs are smart enough to make decisions based on merit?
>
>Even if they are not, what is to stop a nation setting up something like Pharmac: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Management_Agency ... read the section under "Performance and Political Status" and note who is opposed to an organized reduction of pharmaceutical budget to benefit the people. Hint - it's not the MDs, or the MB,ChBs as it would be in NZ.


>>Asking leading questions is not a proof. ;-)
I thought I'd slip that one by!
But you must admit that the potential for a conflict of interest is huge.
My personal experience bears that out.
My late wife was diagnosed with drug-induced lupus. She had taken so many pills that they never figured out which one caused it.
I rarely walk out of an MD's office without a prescription.
Unless it's aimed at a specific result, like an anti-biotic for an infection, I equally rarely have them filled.

>>Even if they are not, what is to stop a nation setting up something like Pharmac:?
Excellent question.
No surprise at who's opposing it.

I just came across this today:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/05/sticker-shock-how-big-pharma-gauges-the-american-public/