The gift restrictions are established by the Sunshine Act that came into effect in 2010 and it required companies such as pharmaceutical and medical device, including durable medical equipment suppliers, to report gifts above $25. While I understand the perspective of the post initiator, I believe that the restrictions are crucial to create a fair market and protect customers. Without these restrictions the relationships between physicians and medical product manufacturers can create conflicts of interest and blur line between promotional activities and the conduct of medical research, training, and practice.
I believe that this isn't restricted since bribery isn't and shouldn't be taken lightly. As stated in lecture, doctors would receive expensive packages and deals from company employees just so that their products can be favored over others regardless of actual effectiveness. Given that and the amount of abuse these companies and doctors have allowed, not paying for the wife during dinner is not restricted. Robert mentions that paying for someone else's meal is what should be done when collaborating, however, the wife is not I believe. The doctor is the collaborator, not the wife. Yes, it is courteous but the doctor should be having dinner with the lead engineer or designee. To mitigate, I think just including the main members of the meeting would suffice.
I don't think this is to restricted, it should be this way. I will say companies should not even pay $100 because even doctor is also is making enough money by doing the surgery and if the the doctors want best for their patient they have to use the best product out their in the market. My parents are nurses in India and I know a lot of doctors who get paid from the Pharmaceuticals companies to Prescribe their medication to the patients even that medication is not best to treat the patients. So I am totally against this, I will say if you have the meeting with the doctors than it should be totally formal everyone should pay for their own meal and most importantly Doctors should not be greedy and always use what is best for their patient.
A small reimbursement of $100, I believe, is a good reimbursement for a doctor's time that compensates the doctor without creating a meaningful conflict of interest. While the exact amount can be debated, a compensation that is insignificant in comparison to the doctor's salary is a good way to minimize any risk of bribery, or even the appearance of bribery. For this reason, I also am pleased to see that even a doctor's partner's meal isn't covered, as it closes a loophole that is easy to take advantage of.
A better law, In my opinion, would, however, tie the amount to inflation. $100 was worth quite a bit more in 2010 than it is now, and it will continue to be worth less over time. Until or unless the law is revised - a process that is slow at best given increasing amounts of partisan deadlock - the amount it covers is inconsistent.
Regardless of the amount, I am also happy to see that contributions must be reported when over $25. This gives power to patients and allows them to consider any influences a doctor may have when suggesting a certain drug, device, or procedure. On the whole, I believe the law is reasonable about this matter.
It is important that there is a restriction placed on the amount a company put into giving a gift to a physician. If there is no limit set on the amount of money a gift can be then it is likely that the physician will take advantage of the company. In addition, the company should not feel liable for paying for the spouse’s meal. The company is trying to get the interest of the physician. As a result, they should only be responsible for the physician. The company will only be doing business with the physician. As much as the spouse is there with the physician and the physician may become more interested knowing the spouse it taken care, it is not fair to the company.
I do not think this is an over-restriction. These types of restriction are needed to keep the overall benefits in mind, instead of doctors being influenced by gift. The gift can easily be seen as bribes and this is a very unethical topic especially in the medical field. "Gifts" are a great technique to do business with, but fields like healthcare and other heavily regulated fields should have great restrictions on how businesses influence their clients. The idea and practicality of something should influence a decision, not the value of the gift from a company. This keeps the people potentially affected by the business transaction protected.
I do not believe this is an over-restriction in fact the companies do have many loopholes. During undergraduate I worked part time as a clinical research coordinator for a pain management practice and every week at least 3-4 times a pharmaceutical/medical device representative would come in with lunches worth between 200-300 dollars for the entire office. In fact they would contact the office manager and ask for preference of food and nothing was really off limits in terms of price and this lunch would be enough for the entire office. This would be in addition to the reps pitching new products and research ideas over expensive dinners. While the rules and regulations of this behavior has definitely become more stringent there are still some practices that are legal and questionable in the industry. In fact there are websites where you can view how much physicians receive and from what companies they are receiving the money. I've copied on site below for anyone that is curious.
The restrictions that the gifts have to be less than $100 and have to be educational is a bit restricted I believe. I agree with the fact that the gifts should be educational but putting a number on how much you can spend makes it hard to find the perfect gift for the physician. We are gifting the physicians for the work they are doing and for helping the company out, so a nice gift would not hurt. But I do not like the part where if the physician's spouse came for dinner, we are not allowed to pay for them. I get that it might be expensive but I find it awkward that we can pay for one person but not the other. If we can not pay for everyone that came, they should not be invited in the first place.
Personally, I believe that it is both necessary and in good business practice to separate family and business matters in today’s world with all the guidelines and laws in place. This remains true even during ‘business trips’ where a rep will take out a physician and the physician’s family decides to come along. While I agree with what sahitya.sadineni, krp76, and countless others said before me, there needs to be a definite line between work life and family life. Although I think it is generally in poor taste, I would like to reiterate that that if the family decides to accompany the physician on the trip, the rep is in no way obliged (nor supposed to) compensate them for their stay as well. After all, in a purely business perspective, the business is between the physician and the rep alone; the rest of the family is simply an unnecessary expense to the meeting.
This is a good question for discussion, Roberto. I agree with zmh4 that if two people are out to discuss business, then it should only be about business. However, some issues can come up, and an uninvited or invited party joins the meeting. In the case of a doctor having a meeting with another person and he decides to bring his wife along, there are restrictions that prevent the other party from buying even lunch to the doctor’s wife. While most people would see this as restrictive and unreasonable, these restrictions are for the best interest of the patients and other parties involved. Doctors should never be bribed as this would compromise how they discharge their duties. In fact, they should not be given too expensive gifts as this is seen as an indirect form of bribery. To be honest, doctors are fully aware of these restrictions, so in most cases, it’s the people they are meeting with that find these restrictions too restrictive.
I do believe that this is too restricted, to go as not paying for the physician's wife to a dinner. I believe that these companies should have some type of budget that they know they are willing to spend regardless of who is involved, even if that person was not part of the actual project. Companies can also make it clear that they should not bring anyone that is not involved in the project, that would include any family members who may think they are getting a free dinner. Having these types of memos can really help dissipate confusion and allow the company to treat its physicians or anyone that has been involved.
You have given a good point. Rules of Educational gifts are acceptable but setting up a limit of $100 is not a good one. At least the amount limit should be increased. Also, there is no point in taking a wife for a business meeting unless she is also involved in business. Dealing the business with a professional attitude is better. So I can go ahead with not inviting any one who are related to business would be a better option. They can frame a rule of business meeting should be taken place without any personal relationships around.
These restrictions do seem very harsh, but I believe that they are necessary to maintain an ethical business environment. In the case of not being able to pay for dinner for the physician's wife I think it is important to keep the relationship with the physician strictly professional and paying for his wife's dinner may not seem like a big deal it is still important to define what is and isn't appropriate and stick with that. The reasons these restrictions exist in this case is so that the physician doesn't compromise his service and by keep the amount of gifts that the physician can receive will keep the relationship strictly business, as it should be.
I think the rules set are good. Because, physician can attend business meeting but I dont think wife has anythig to do with that business meeting. We should not let money take over and hence it is good that these rules are set. This will not give chance for bribery.
Rules are to be properly formed. It is good that they don't need to give a gift that would be out of education. But there is no necessity in keeping the limits. When it comes to education it must a worthy enough constructive one. Or high limits must be set for the amount. Also there is nothing wrong in spending for a meal. I feel that the rules can be loosen up.
