January 12, 2009
Dr. Gupta Accused of Malpractice (Bill Press)
At first, he seemed like the perfect candidate. He’s the most popular TV doc ever: CNN’s handsome, articulate, energetic, personable Sanjay Gupta. He’s both a noted neurosurgeon and a media star. Who better to serve the nation as surgeon general?
I admit, when I first heard that he was Obama’s choice for surgeon general, I had a heart flutter. Perfect choice! But then other voices, who knew Sanjay Gupta better than I, started speaking out.
Leading the chorus, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who noted that Gupta was a longtime critic of universal healthcare. Why should Obama’s most visible healthcare advocate, asked Conyers, be someone opposed to universal healthcare — which both Obama and incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle support? Good question!
Then came Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who pointed out that Gupta went out of his way to attack filmmaker Michael Moore for his documentary “Sicko.” Yet, on every point, Moore proved he was right on his facts — and Gupta was wrong.
And then it was revealed that Dr. Gupta has financial ties to — meaning: he’s taken a lot of money from — many major pharmaceutical companies for saying good things about their drugs.
The more we learn about Sanjay Gupta, in other words, the more questions have been raised about his qualifications for surgeon general. Indeed, enough questions have been raised about this appointment for Barack Obama to reconsider and name someone else, perhaps lesser-known — but better-qualified.
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 4 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Bill
That's a pretty strong attack regarding the pharmaceuticals, contrasting your very vague unfounded allegations.
Malpractice? Or, short fictious story?
Where are the facts? Where is the proof?
A good man's reputation is on the line here. I do recall Dr Gupta performing brain surgery in Iraq, in the midst of the war, as a favor to save a life a few years ago while there as a medical journalist. Would you like t comment on that, Sir?
Comment by JFK-HRC — January 12, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Paul Krugman and Michael Moore are two idiots who support government over people. The film Sicko was filled with half truths and few facts. As far as Michael Moore using facts, he rarely does, and when he does use any so called facts, he twists them.
Here is a little article about what to expect when healthcare features are nationalized and price controls set in. If you don't believe it, you're not very bright.
The article is written by Peter J. Pitts. Mr. Pitts is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a former FDA Associate Commissioner.
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Government_price_controls_cant_fix_health_care_011208.html
Supporters of National Health Care gloss over the facts and the expense and the fact that hacks become doctors because they're income becomes controlled. All the good doctors get out. Why do you think England has so few dentists? Why go to school for 12 years to become a government employee?
tional healthcare spending hit a record high of $2.2 trillion in 2007, according to a report just released by the government. The total accounts for over 16 percent of the nation's GDP, and averages out to a $7,421 bill for each one of us.
These numbers are staggering. President-elect Barack Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee, Tom Daschle, need to take immediate steps to make sure the money we spend delivers the healthcare we need.
Unfortunately, many of the incoming administration's reform proposals, although well-intentioned, boil down to a single, destructive policy: Price controls.
History shows that price controls usually result in severe shortages. This is no less true when it comes to the healthcare sector. Take, for example, Obama's plan to allow public insurance programs to directly negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical ompanies.
The Medicare Part D drug benefit was created in 2003 to subsidize prescription drug purchases for Medicare beneficiaries. Many politicians, including Obama and Daschle, have taken issue with Part D's "non-interference clause," which prohibits the government from influencing drug prices.
As anyone who's ever run a business can tell you, prices aren't arbitrary. In the drug market, sellers must strike a balance between setting a price that is affordable for those who need the medicine most, and making enough profit to fund research into future medicines.
It costs around $1 billion to develop a new medicine in the United States. If Congress makes drug companies sell their products at below-market prices, funding for research and development will plummet. This poses a serious threat to the future of medical innovation.
And for those suffering from diseases that currently lack satisfactory drug treatments, like Lou Gehrig's disease or Diabetic neuropathy, drying up R&D funding would remove all hope of ever being cured.
The new administration is also likely to institute price controls on pharmaceuticals by allowing "the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries," as President-elect Obama has put it.
Some see repealing the ban on drug importation as a way to reduce healthcare spending since many brand-name drugs are available at lower prices in countries like Canada and the UK.
But drugs from abroad are cheaper mainly because other countries have rigidly enforced pharmaceutical price controls. Legalizing importation would essentially allow Americans to import other countries' wrongheaded economic policies, and siphon funds away from needed medical research.
The purported benefit of drug importation — cost savings — is negligible, at best. According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the ban on drug importation would only lower healthcare spending by less than one percent.
But perhaps the most damaging healthcare reform we are likely to see in the coming years is Secretary Daschle's plan for a Federal Health Board. Based loosely on Great Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), this new body would evaluate the effectiveness of different medical treatments with the aim of removing waste from the healthcare system.
Daschle has said that the agency will "reduce or deny payment for new drugs and procedures that aren't as effective as current ones." In the past, however, agencies like NICE have unfairly denied treatment to patients by applying a broad definition of "effective."
Just look at what happened last year when NICE decided that the arthritis drug abatacept was too costly to cover. Despite the fact that the drug is one of the only treatment options for some arthritis sufferers, the NICE denied it to tens of thousands of British patients for purely economic reasons.
Similar rationing will likely take place under Daschle's proposed Federal Health Board, especially considering that, like the Federal Reserve, it will be an independent body, immune from the kinds of political pressures that keep over-eager regulators in check.
This healthcare effectiveness agency is another example of how the Obama administration could put the health of millions of Americans at risk in order to save the government a little money.
President-elect Obama's determination to reduce healthcare spending is commendable. But price controls aren't the answer. Reforms shouldn't threaten the world's supply of medicines or patient access to high quality healthcare.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 12, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Personally I was appalled by Gupta's appointment. I had visions of Willard Scott being appointed head of the National Weather Service. Great links today.
Comment by Joie at Canned Laughter — January 12, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Name a Doctor who has been in business 10 years that hasn't had a malpractice suit.
Drugs in the U.S. are over priced. When I can buy a prescription drug from Canada for half the cost of the same drug in the U.S. something is wrong.
I understand recouping the cost of development and production of a drug, many are found by accident while researching a cure for something else, but the cost should be paid by anyone who purchases that drug; not only people living in the U.S.
Comment by Donaldd — January 12, 2009 @ 1:07 pm