>>So.. Dr Ryan.... what were you saying about MD ethics in prescribing?
>>These people (both the payors and they payees) should be cuffed and sent to jail.

Lose the prejudice, dude. ;-) The biggest payment to a physician was royalties for vessel grafts he helped invent. Similar payments are made to engineers and others in business who invent stuff, except there aren't armchair critics hollering that they should be put in jail for being clever.

Payments to physicians and facilities also are made for research- because manufacturers can't try out treatments on patients themselves, and can't simply declare that their product is a success as they do in IT. Cancel these payments and how will you promote research into lifesaving drugs? It'll move abroad overnight, and your centers of excellence will begin a decline.

A more typical payment to a physician would be covering costs to speak at a conference. FWIW, I believe that SWFox covers costs for its speakers as well. Should they go to jail?

I agree with the commentary in your article, which says to suspend judgment until matching is complete. If it can be established that some speakers are paid to express a particular opinion- that's still not criminal. E.g. it happens in IT as well. The difference is that in medicine, paid sock puppets for manufacturers take a big reputation hit and end up with minimal credibility, whereas in IT they expect to be put on a pedestal and treated as experts because the vendor says they are.

If it can be established that physicians are paid to prescribe a particular drug - which is your immediate preferred interpretation- then I agree, that's not good as it tends to increase price for consumers whether it's building materials or drugs. In any case, your focus on physicians has little impact- because their share of the health dollar is small. You could halve their incomes and still not prevent this year's rise in healthcare costs. I'm reminded of beams and splinters etc etc.