I think these restrictions are essentials and would help physicians and employers to avoid many problems at work. I think without any gifts restrictions, some people would go crazy thinking that the more expensive the gift we give is the more we will get back from the physician, and that would cause a lot of embarrassment and issues for people who have less income and more responsibilities and could be an extra thing to think about. AMA ethics and The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) rules of 2010 put a clear end line for all participants in the US federal health care programs regarding gifts related concerns such as cash or other gifts made to physicians or education hospitals during either an internship or residency program.
From my research, I knew that each state has a different rule regarding gift restrictions. However, in New Jersey, "Starting January 15, 2018, all contracts and payments entered into by physicians directly with the pharmaceutical industry will be subject to a $10,000 total yearly cap for New Jersey physicians with all pharmaceutical companies. This includes payments from industry for consulting and speaking but exempts research and education related payments. In addition, physicians will be subject to a $15 dollar meal cap, for meals related to all activities."
Reference: policymed dot com website: New Jersey Finalizes “Gift” Ban of Physicians Working with the Pharmaceutical Industry
To be honest, I think these laws are necessary and I don't really think they are too restricted. Yes it does make situations awkward (like when the doctor brings his wife and her meal can't be payed for). But usually family members are not expected to be present during professional meetings and events, so it makes sense to me why such a restriction is there.
I think these kind of laws are made due to misuse of hospitality (because doctors and physicians can get greedy). I know that doctors and surgeons are splurged with comfort during conferences and other meetings, so they indirectly receive a lot (like a LOT!) during these educational events. They only aren't allowed to receive gifts personally or directly from the companies. So I think doctors are enjoying the hospitality of companies regardless of these restrictions.
I agree with the above statement, that this rule needs to be enforced. Expense paid dinners can be taken advantage of, not only by the employee but even by the physician or their spouse. They can damage the integrity of the business meeting altogether. The physician could enjoy being taken out to dinner with their spouse, and therefore would take a long time to discuss business, and would require more dinner outings. With this rule enforced, and the employee or physician having to pay for the physician's spouse, they would be less likely to drag out the conversation and would get down to business sooner.
Hello everyone,
As I was listening to this week's lecture, it called my attention the fact that companies can only give gifts of 100$ to the physicians and those gifts have to be related to health. Additionally, Dr. Simon mentioned that whenever these people go have dinner to discuss the project and the doctor brings his wife, you can't even pay for the meal of the physician's wife. Don't you think that this too restricted? Paying for someone else's meal is the least you can do when that person is helping achieve something important. What do you think about this? Is there anything that could be done in order to improve this kind of awkward situations?
Sincerely,
Roberto Pineda.
I don't think it's too restricted to not pay for the spouse's meal. Those boundaries have to be set when discussing a project. But what if the spouse is apart of the project, too? Does this rule still apply?
Roberto,
I believe the restrictions are absolutely necessary to prevent tampering from the companies. These gifts can already be seen as a bribery by the company in order to create bias. This rule should also be in place in the field of politics if certain senators or people of influence have received donations from corporations, and then create policy and laws in favor of the corporation foul play is at hand. So I believe it creates a field of assurance that devices are in interest of patients and not capital gain.
Hello everyone,
As I was listening to this week's lecture, it called my attention the fact that companies can only give gifts of 100$ to the physicians and those gifts have to be related to health. Additionally, Dr. Simon mentioned that whenever these people go have dinner to discuss the project and the doctor brings his wife, you can't even pay for the meal of the physician's wife. Don't you think that this too restricted? Paying for someone else's meal is the least you can do when that person is helping achieve something important. What do you think about this? Is there anything that could be done in order to improve this kind of awkward situations?
Sincerely,
Roberto Pineda.
I consider the situation to be greater than awkward meal-time etiquette. The unfortunate reality is that physicians do not frequently have time to read new research, familiarize themselves with the clinical trial outcomes associated medical devices, nor conduct original clinical research. Thus the physician-company representative relationship may be imbalanced. In this relationship that physician may be regard the company representative as an expert and thus creating an imbalance of power. If we combine the imbalance of power, with seemingly unlimited monetary reserves; when now created the possibility for corruption. Subsequently, the company rep has spending limiting, and "gift" limits to minimize bias and corruption of a vulnerable populations. In this scenario, the vulnerable population is composed of physicians.
Roberto,
I believe the restrictions are absolutely necessary to prevent tampering from the companies. These gifts can already be seen as a bribery by the company in order to create bias. This rule should also be in place in the field of politics if certain senators or people of influence have received donations from corporations, and then create policy and laws in favor of the corporation foul play is at hand. So I believe it creates a field of assurance that devices are in interest of patients and not capital gain.
Marvin, I completely agree that this rule is necessary to maintain the integrity of the physician-company representative relations. I also love the perspective that a similar rule should be implemented in politics. Were you considering that this rule be implemented for state and national politics? Can you think of an occasion when this rule should be waived for physicians?
Hello everyone,
As I was listening to this week's lecture, it called my attention the fact that companies can only give gifts of 100$ to the physicians and those gifts have to be related to health. Additionally, Dr. Simon mentioned that whenever these people go have dinner to discuss the project and the doctor brings his wife, you can't even pay for the meal of the physician's wife. Don't you think that this too restricted? Paying for someone else's meal is the least you can do when that person is helping achieve something important. What do you think about this? Is there anything that could be done in order to improve this kind of awkward situations?
Sincerely,
Roberto Pineda.I don't think it's too restricted to not pay for the spouse's meal. Those boundaries have to be set when discussing a project. But what if the spouse is apart of the project, too? Does this rule still apply?
Hi Letisha, I do not believe that the rule applies if both husband and spouse work on the project. I agree that the rule is not too strict.
Hello everyone,
As I was listening to this week's lecture, it called my attention the fact that companies can only give gifts of 100$ to the physicians and those gifts have to be related to health. Additionally, Dr. Simon mentioned that whenever these people go have dinner to discuss the project and the doctor brings his wife, you can't even pay for the meal of the physician's wife. Don't you think that this too restricted? Paying for someone else's meal is the least you can do when that person is helping achieve something important. What do you think about this? Is there anything that could be done in order to improve this kind of awkward situations?
Sincerely,
Roberto Pineda.
Times have definitely changed surrounding privileges being offered to physicians. I heard stories of physicians being taken on trips, given extravagant gifts, and seemingly treated like royalty just for working with certain companies. Nowadays, things are much more strict since there are legal repercussions that companies can face if they treated surgeons like that, since it could seem like a form of bribery. Typically, if a physician is required to travel to support work with a company, it is usually because they are consultants of that company. The company will usually cover a portion or all of their travel, hotel, and meals for these types of trips, which is consistent with how employees of a company are treated. At the end of the day, the relationship between a physician and company is purely for business purposes, so they should be treated as employees of the company.
I think the gift restriction is a good thing as not all companies are at the same level in terms of their budget, one company has the best product but not much capital can easily fall short in pleasing the physician with their gift at the same time a big medical device company won't let the doctor down in that department even if their product is not the best, it all depends on the physician to make a decision in the end but I feel the restrictions are right and I feel they should even go down with the limit to maybe $20-30.
On the other hand, I don't really feel one should be allowed to have a meal with the physician as I am of the opinion that it should be kept as professional as possible but since we are allowed to take them I feel we should be able to pay the bill for the physician as well as the wife.
In my opinion it is fair enough and not too restrictive because the law is enforced only after there have been cases where the physician was easily bribed to sell their product and make a huge profit. The physician will definitely have some sort of benefits for using the product when it is needed for a patient. The physician will definitely be aware about the Anti-Kickback Statutes policy and will definitely understand the situation of the person on the other side. It is important that there is a restriction on the amount spent on the gifts as @AniketB mentioned in his post because some companies will be tight on their budget as they haven't set a mark in the market and would need the physician's help to get to be recognized in the market.
In terms of paying for the spouse’s meal, I feel that most doctors today are probably already aware of such restrictions. Therefore, if they do bring their spouse to such a dinner than it should not come to them as a surprise or result in an awkward situation. As for the restrictions themselves, I agree that they are necessary to prevent companies from persuading doctors to favor their products over that of competitors. As mentioned in the lecture, such practices are not beneficial to patients as it can result in that product being purchased over a better alternative. Therefore, I personally am in favor of such restrictions that prevent lavish incentives being given to doctors by medical device companies to promote their products. In the case of medical products, I would be in favor of increased restrictions on gifts and meals at restaurants. On the contrary, for consulting or educational jobs on site, I agree that simple food or refreshments should be allowed as a way for the company to show their hospitality towards the visitor. Overall, I believe it is important to have restrictions that help ensure that doctors are purchasing medical products on the basis that they believe it is the best product for their patients.
It might sound harsh that in a diner a person can not pay for doctor's spouses' dinner but I believe the restrictions are necessary to prevent tampering from the companies. As has been the case, there are several pharmaceutical companies that already bribe doctors in a certain way so that they keep their product selling. So I think the rules are necessary so that the companies do not interfere and bribe the doctors so that the patients can have an open view and right product as per their choice.
In my opinion, this restriction is necessary. There are three reasons: first of all, when talking about business, we only need the presence of the parties and should not let people (including family and friends) who have nothing to do with business participate in order to avoid bribery suspicion. Secondly, if the value of a gift is high enough to shake the doctor's position, then this business is unethical in my opinion, because money will deceive the doctor's objective judgment of this business, so it needs to be limited. Thirdly, this restriction not only avoids the occurrence of bribery, but also conforms to the politeness of gift giving, so it is necessary.
I agree with most of the comments regarding buying a meal for a physician, I think it is only acceptable to pay for the meal for those involved in the discussion of any project or work issues. Anyone additional who was brought for the meal is not needed at the discussion.
As far as gifts other than meals, I don't see why any gift giving is necessary even if it is less than $100. I think giving any gifts can just create bias and cause pressure for future discussions.
