doctors

a couple of interesting articles, courtesy of the new york times, both on doctors:

1. stop pharmaceutical companies from bribing doctors with gifts - the conflict of interest here is obvious, and therefore unsurprising. what is interesting to me is this:

Among the most controversial of the institute’s recommendations is a plan to end industry influence over medical refresher courses. Presently, drug and device makers provide about half of the funding for such courses so that doctors can often take them for free. Even as they have acknowledged the need for other limits, many medical societies and schools have defended subsidies for education as necessary. The institute acknowledged that many doctors depend on industry funding for refresher medical courses but said that “the current system of funding is unacceptable and should not continue.” The report recommended that a different funding system be created within two years.

I do actually think this is a legitimate concern. I mean...a new different funding system is fine and good, but from where exactly does that new funding system propose to, you know, get funding? Although, how much evidence is there that refresher courses actually work? (As opposed to individual study?) Anyone?

2. on the other hand, more doctors, please:
Well, thank god Annie went into primary care, because we need more of these, and soon. More people need medical care than ever (about to get even worse as the baby boomers enter old age) and as you can see above, fewer and fewer medical students pursue primary care as an option. The government is considering re-aligning the incentives by having Medicare compensate general practitioners more and specialists less (sounds good to me), but medical lobbyists hate the idea of taking money away from anyone. They simply suggest more doctors, but more doctors means higher costs. So.