grief is a physiological process that impairs proper brain function and gets things like serotonin and dopamine levels all out of whack. why would it not be considered a disorder if tthere is an imbalance or if things are not functioning properly? there are medications that correct these levels of serotonin and dopamine and they can be very effective. changing those levels is a time consuming process and does not happen after a week of taking medication. that is why people are on antidepressants for up to a year sometimes.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
grief is a physiological process that impairs proper brain function and gets things like serotonin and dopamine levels all out of whack. why would it not be considered a disorder if tthere is an imbalance or if things are not functioning properly? there are medications that correct these levels of serotonin and dopamine and they can be very effective. changing those levels is a time consuming process and does not happen after a week of taking medication. that is why people are on antidepressants for up to a year sometimes.
True sign of the pharmaceutical companies running our medical profession
Docs take control and do what is right for the human body ... you took an oath!
What sign says that? Again, maybe I'm out of the loop, but does someone have evidence that drug companies and the DSM writers are in cahoots, and revising the DSM to increase drug sales?
Evidence that Doctors get kick backs to supplement their income from drug companies?
Is your doctor receiving pharmaceutical kickbacks?
Clark has been through a recent cycle with a sinus infection that started with as his usual seasonal allergies. The cost is always an unknown when his allergist writes any kind of prescription for him. In this case, she prescribed both an antibiotic and a nasal spray.
Well, it turned out that 10 days of antibiotics was $2.05. It was the cheapest script the consumer champ has ever had from any doctor at any time. On the other hand, the nasal spray was $90! He simply had to swallow hard and open his wallet.
Now, there are doctors who will write scripts in good faith without knowing the end cost to the patient. And then there are doctors who are on the payroll of giant pharmaceutical companies and push drugs irrespective of cost because it pads their pockets.
In fact, nearly 400 doctors across the country have received at least $100,000 from drug companies in 2009 and early 2010, according to an independent news organization called ProPublica.
If a doctor is getting a hundred grand or more each year from certain drug makers, what do you think they're going to write when you come in? A $4 generic script from Wal-Mart or Target? No, they're going write the brand name that gives them kickbacks.
Want to know if your doctor is on the take? Run their name and state through the Dollars for Docs page.
One Nevada doctor received more than $300,000 from drug companies. California has the most doctors (3,000) who are on the take. Perhaps there might be some legitimate reason why doctors would receive Big Pharma money, but Clark's not aware of one.
True sign of the pharmaceutical companies running our medical profession
Docs take control and do what is right for the human body ... you took an oath!
What sign says that? Again, maybe I'm out of the loop, but does someone have evidence that drug companies and the DSM writers are in cahoots, and revising the DSM to increase drug sales?
Evidence that Doctors get kick backs to supplement their income from drug companies?
Is your doctor receiving pharmaceutical kickbacks?
Clark has been through a recent cycle with a sinus infection that started with as his usual seasonal allergies. The cost is always an unknown when his allergist writes any kind of prescription for him. In this case, she prescribed both an antibiotic and a nasal spray.
Well, it turned out that 10 days of antibiotics was $2.05. It was the cheapest script the consumer champ has ever had from any doctor at any time. On the other hand, the nasal spray was $90! He simply had to swallow hard and open his wallet.
Now, there are doctors who will write scripts in good faith without knowing the end cost to the patient. And then there are doctors who are on the payroll of giant pharmaceutical companies and push drugs irrespective of cost because it pads their pockets.
In fact, nearly 400 doctors across the country have received at least $100,000 from drug companies in 2009 and early 2010, according to an independent news organization called ProPublica.
If a doctor is getting a hundred grand or more each year from certain drug makers, what do you think they're going to write when you come in? A $4 generic script from Wal-Mart or Target? No, they're going write the brand name that gives them kickbacks.
Want to know if your doctor is on the take? Run their name and state through the Dollars for Docs page.
One Nevada doctor received more than $300,000 from drug companies. California has the most doctors (3,000) who are on the take. Perhaps there might be some legitimate reason why doctors would receive Big Pharma money, but Clark's not aware of one.
I've seen the slimy drug reps hanging out at doctors offices. My question is about the writers of the DSM being swayed by drug companies.
My question is about the writers of the DSM being swayed by drug companies.
Are they? Because that's what the public generally thinks of when they read articles like the one in the OP or the video I posted.
Personally, I wouldn't think so directly. Or, they shouldn't be, anyway. It may indirectly affect pharmaceutical company recruit tactics or whatnot, but the DSM is just diagnostic criteria and doesn't really address medication.
it is illegal for doctors to get kickbacks from drug companies...
why do you think the drug companies market directly to the patients now?
remember all of the "tell your doctor you need x drug" ads??
tell your doctor tell your doctor.
last i checked your doctor was supposed to tell YOU what you should do.
fact is, i work in an md office in illinois, and we can not get lunches brought to us by drug reps, we can not get post it notes or pens with a medication logo on it, and we can't play golf or go to dinner with reps like we used to be able to do. this is why the drug companies are blitzing the general public with their ads..
i am not saying that drug reps had an impact of the decisions the docs i work with made, but they have stuck with things that they know works for their paitients and are very reluctant to try new meds or products until they read more studies on them.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i am not saying that drug reps had an impact of the decisions the docs i work with made, but they have stuck with things that they know works for their paitients and are very reluctant to try new meds or products until they read more studies on them.
Kickbacks to Providers from Pharmaceutical Companies Still Going Strong
by NOLAN AND AUERBACH on NOVEMBER 18, 2011 Kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies cloud the medical judgment of health care providers and run afoul of federal and state anti-kickback laws. Most prominently, the federal Anti-kickback Act (AKS) was specifically designed to ensure that physicians prescribe drugs based on patient need, not personal greed.
In recent years, however, pharma companies have become increasingly clever in disguising illegal kickbacks. Most prominent are massive speaker bureaus, speaker programs, and advisory boards, all in an attempt to disguise excessive payments as fees for “speaking engagements,” “consulting services” or “training sessions.” Typically, instead of recruiting speakers and consultants based on their experience or credentials, dishonest companies will target physicians based on their potential prescription-writing volume. Furthermore, once physicians are accepted into their programs, the companies will unofficially require speakers to meet minimum prescription levels. Payment for “Research” and the collection of data are other techniques still used by wayward pharmaceutical companies.
The AKA is violated when a person or entity makes or accepts payment for referring, recommending or arranging for federally-funded medical items or services, including items or services provided under the Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. Violations of the AKA are per se violations of the federal False Claims Act, the government’s primary pharmaceutical fraud-fighting weapon.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct extensive return-on-investment analysis in devising and implementing sophisticated marketing schemes and programs. Dishonest pharmaceutical companies will skirt the AKA, knowing their bribes will influence prescribing habits and, in turn, result in the provision of goods and services that are more expensive and/or medically unnecessary or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. Over the last fifteen years, dozens of pharmaceutical companies have shelled out multimillion dollar settlement checks to quiet allegations that they showered doctors with illegal kickbacks. Up to several years ago many kickbacks were blatant bribes, including outright “grants,” tickets to sporting events, and other gifts and benefits.
Most illegal kickbacks to doctors are thinly-veiled incentives for off-label prescriptions, for uses that do not work. These business practices cause federal and state government health care programs to pay millions of dollars for prescriptions which are ineligible for payment. Notably, while a physician may prescribe a drug off-label, the law prohibits the provider from inking a kickback-tainted prescription for a Government Health Care Program beneficiary.
The government simply doesn’t have the resources to unravel these schemes, unless pharmaceutical employees and health care providers courageously provide the necessary inside information. For those who do take this stand, the rewards are potentially worth millions.
For more information about qui tam law and pharmaceutical fraud, contact Nolan and Auerbach, P.A.
Kickbacks to Providers from Pharmaceutical Companies Still Going Strong
by NOLAN AND AUERBACH on NOVEMBER 18, 2011 Kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies cloud the medical judgment of health care providers and run afoul of federal and state anti-kickback laws. Most prominently, the federal Anti-kickback Act (AKS) was specifically designed to ensure that physicians prescribe drugs based on patient need, not personal greed.
In recent years, however, pharma companies have become increasingly clever in disguising illegal kickbacks. Most prominent are massive speaker bureaus, speaker programs, and advisory boards, all in an attempt to disguise excessive payments as fees for “speaking engagements,” “consulting services” or “training sessions.” Typically, instead of recruiting speakers and consultants based on their experience or credentials, dishonest companies will target physicians based on their potential prescription-writing volume. Furthermore, once physicians are accepted into their programs, the companies will unofficially require speakers to meet minimum prescription levels. Payment for “Research” and the collection of data are other techniques still used by wayward pharmaceutical companies.
The AKA is violated when a person or entity makes or accepts payment for referring, recommending or arranging for federally-funded medical items or services, including items or services provided under the Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. Violations of the AKA are per se violations of the federal False Claims Act, the government’s primary pharmaceutical fraud-fighting weapon.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct extensive return-on-investment analysis in devising and implementing sophisticated marketing schemes and programs. Dishonest pharmaceutical companies will skirt the AKA, knowing their bribes will influence prescribing habits and, in turn, result in the provision of goods and services that are more expensive and/or medically unnecessary or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. Over the last fifteen years, dozens of pharmaceutical companies have shelled out multimillion dollar settlement checks to quiet allegations that they showered doctors with illegal kickbacks. Up to several years ago many kickbacks were blatant bribes, including outright “grants,” tickets to sporting events, and other gifts and benefits.
Most illegal kickbacks to doctors are thinly-veiled incentives for off-label prescriptions, for uses that do not work. These business practices cause federal and state government health care programs to pay millions of dollars for prescriptions which are ineligible for payment. Notably, while a physician may prescribe a drug off-label, the law prohibits the provider from inking a kickback-tainted prescription for a Government Health Care Program beneficiary.
The government simply doesn’t have the resources to unravel these schemes, unless pharmaceutical employees and health care providers courageously provide the necessary inside information. For those who do take this stand, the rewards are potentially worth millions.
For more information about qui tam law and pharmaceutical fraud, contact Nolan and Auerbach, P.A.
i would be interested to see some actual numbers of doctors on this. there are very few medical doctors that are out and out whores...
any doctor, particularly a surgeon here that gives any sort of speaking engagement has to disclose any financial relationship with any drug or product company. this the the very first thing they talk about in their presentations. immediately following them introducing themselves they disclose any arrangements with outside companies that they might have....most of the ones here are affiliated with surgical tool or implant companies because they are doing research and using those products to compare them to other ones to publish their research. also, some of these surgeons design tools or implants and are affiliated with a company that will manufacture what they design.
not everything is a big money stealing conspiracy.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
not everything is a big money stealing conspiracy.
Oh the irony, I'm gonna keep this.
You know this really just seems to come down to a difference of opinion by the experts. Some think that by doing this, people will get help sooner in the process and that more people will be helped. The others feel that we will be over prescribing medications to people that just need to go through the normal process of grieving.
Not being a doctor it all seems a little silly to me. Why don't we just leave it up to the individual treating physician to determine what level of care their patient needs for whatever they are dealing with? This is the problem with writing a "bible" of something. It is good for reference, but it most certainly doesn't apply to all. But maybe I'm missing the point here.
Kickbacks to Providers from Pharmaceutical Companies Still Going Strong
by NOLAN AND AUERBACH on NOVEMBER 18, 2011 Kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies cloud the medical judgment of health care providers and run afoul of federal and state anti-kickback laws. Most prominently, the federal Anti-kickback Act (AKS) was specifically designed to ensure that physicians prescribe drugs based on patient need, not personal greed.
In recent years, however, pharma companies have become increasingly clever in disguising illegal kickbacks. Most prominent are massive speaker bureaus, speaker programs, and advisory boards, all in an attempt to disguise excessive payments as fees for “speaking engagements,” “consulting services” or “training sessions.” Typically, instead of recruiting speakers and consultants based on their experience or credentials, dishonest companies will target physicians based on their potential prescription-writing volume. Furthermore, once physicians are accepted into their programs, the companies will unofficially require speakers to meet minimum prescription levels. Payment for “Research” and the collection of data are other techniques still used by wayward pharmaceutical companies.
The AKA is violated when a person or entity makes or accepts payment for referring, recommending or arranging for federally-funded medical items or services, including items or services provided under the Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. Violations of the AKA are per se violations of the federal False Claims Act, the government’s primary pharmaceutical fraud-fighting weapon.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct extensive return-on-investment analysis in devising and implementing sophisticated marketing schemes and programs. Dishonest pharmaceutical companies will skirt the AKA, knowing their bribes will influence prescribing habits and, in turn, result in the provision of goods and services that are more expensive and/or medically unnecessary or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. Over the last fifteen years, dozens of pharmaceutical companies have shelled out multimillion dollar settlement checks to quiet allegations that they showered doctors with illegal kickbacks. Up to several years ago many kickbacks were blatant bribes, including outright “grants,” tickets to sporting events, and other gifts and benefits.
Most illegal kickbacks to doctors are thinly-veiled incentives for off-label prescriptions, for uses that do not work. These business practices cause federal and state government health care programs to pay millions of dollars for prescriptions which are ineligible for payment. Notably, while a physician may prescribe a drug off-label, the law prohibits the provider from inking a kickback-tainted prescription for a Government Health Care Program beneficiary.
The government simply doesn’t have the resources to unravel these schemes, unless pharmaceutical employees and health care providers courageously provide the necessary inside information. For those who do take this stand, the rewards are potentially worth millions.
For more information about qui tam law and pharmaceutical fraud, contact Nolan and Auerbach, P.A.
i would be interested to see some actual numbers of doctors on this. there are very few medical doctors that are out and out whores...
any doctor, particularly a surgeon here that gives any sort of speaking engagement has to disclose any financial relationship with any drug or product company. this the the very first thing they talk about in their presentations. immediately following them introducing themselves they disclose any arrangements with outside companies that they might have....most of the ones here are affiliated with surgical tool or implant companies because they are doing research and using those products to compare them to other ones to publish their research. also, some of these surgeons design tools or implants and are affiliated with a company that will manufacture what they design.
not everything is a big money stealing conspiracy.
too true... not everything or everybody, not always either
but big money is terribly attractive if not corrupting
I feel people are told they need medication when they do not
and the first meds lead to another to correct side effects from the first
then another and another
so by the time one is leaving this world they are on 12 prescription drugs
maybe more, this extending life a matter of 5 to 10 years,
without the quality of life.
A comic line always come to mind
" what they don't tell ya it is the five years that you are peeing your pants
and forgetting your name"
not funny the older I am getting but a great point.
When its time to go it's time, its like any relationship, if the quality of the love is not there,
why stay? this applies to life at least for me, in my opinion.
I just believe this grief is a mental disorder is again glorifying the use of drugs
it sends the message that drugs can mask all when some things are meant to be felt and worked through by one's self.
Sorry to hear about you and redrock's viewpoint. There are thousands of professionals in the field that are dedicated to their client's well-being and don't support the medical model stance of taking a pill to make it go away. A lot of people are working with societal throwaways, victims of trauma, and people experiencing the whole range of emotional problems. Now, if society would only do a better job to improve access to mental health treatment. That's a different story than the DSM.
I completely agree with you that there are numerous 'good people' working as it should with people with problems. Unfortunately, there are also a number that, due to lack of funding, time, etc., will go the 'easy' route. But then again, we digress from the OP which speaks about the DSM which is just a classification of symptoms and has nothing to do with suggesting treatment. What is would concern me is how insurance companies, etc. use this info.....
I feel people are told they need medication when they do not
and the first meds lead to another to correct side effects from the first
then another and another
so by the time one is leaving this world they are on 12 prescription drugs
maybe more, this extending life a matter of 5 to 10 years,
without the quality of life.
A comic line always come to mind
" what they don't tell ya it is the five years that you are peeing your pants
and forgetting your name"
not funny the older I am getting but a great point.
When its time to go it's time, its like any relationship, if the quality of the love is not there,
why stay? this applies to life at least for me, in my opinion.
I just believe this grief is a mental disorder is again glorifying the use of drugs
it sends the message that drugs can mask all when some things are meant to be felt and worked through by one's self.
grief is a physiological process that alters brain chemistry. it is a very time consuming process to fix it. some people need medication to restore the chemical balance. some don't and they heal on their own. most times grief is associated with anxiety, and if one of those two conditions is not treated with meds, the patient does not get better, rather they deteriorate and they become suicidal or their body shuts down on them.
"dying from a broken heart" is a real thing.
if given the choice, knowing what i know now, i would take the medication. from a personal and a scientific standpoint there is no reason for me not to. my struggle with depression has been well documented on this forum. i got better and recoverred, and i credit the meds, among a couple of other things, with saving my life.
i am speaking from my experience. but how many out there do not seek help and end up dead?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I feel people are told they need medication when they do not
and the first meds lead to another to correct side effects from the first
then another and another
so by the time one is leaving this world they are on 12 prescription drugs
maybe more, this extending life a matter of 5 to 10 years,
without the quality of life.
A comic line always come to mind
" what they don't tell ya it is the five years that you are peeing your pants
and forgetting your name"
not funny the older I am getting but a great point.
When its time to go it's time, its like any relationship, if the quality of the love is not there,
why stay? this applies to life at least for me, in my opinion.
I just believe this grief is a mental disorder is again glorifying the use of drugs
it sends the message that drugs can mask all when some things are meant to be felt and worked through by one's self.
Some of what you're saying here may be true, but I wouldn't refuse meds, nor am I a 'drug seeker' which is different than a person who is taking medication as properly prescribed for necessary reasons. If I am having a nervous breakdown after the death of one of my parents, I really hope that a therapist would prescribe me medication temporarily otherwise I will end up under 72 hour observation on a mental ward.
if given the choice, knowing what i know now, i would take the medication. from a personal and a scientific standpoint there is no reason for me not to. my struggle with depression has been well documented on this forum. i got better and recoverred, and i credit the meds, among a couple of other things, with saving my life.
Couldn't agree more. Appropriate meds combined with other suitable therapies can greatly help with healing and full recovery.
I tend to believe that depression is depression, whether one goes through a 'natural process' or not. Grieving for a loss is a natural process but is not feeling down and lost after losing a job, separation, etc also a natural process? It would seem that having a clinical classification of depression following those kinds of events is OK but not for grieving (which can be so much worse).
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,430
I'm not against pharmaceuticals, just very wary of pharmaceutical companies. Serzone (a medication which has been discontinued) greatly helped me through a very difficult time. I would never dream of putting someone down for opting to take anti-depressants if that's what they need to get through a difficult time. At the same time, I think meds are pushed too much through advertising. They have drawbacks and there are other options that should be explored as well.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
not everything is a big money stealing conspiracy.
Oh the irony, I'm gonna keep this.
You know this really just seems to come down to a difference of opinion by the experts. Some think that by doing this, people will get help sooner in the process and that more people will be helped. The others feel that we will be over prescribing medications to people that just need to go through the normal process of grieving.
Not being a doctor it all seems a little silly to me. Why don't we just leave it up to the individual treating physician to determine what level of care their patient needs for whatever they are dealing with? This is the problem with writing a "bible" of something. It is good for reference, but it most certainly doesn't apply to all. But maybe I'm missing the point here.
The problem is with how diagnosis and the DSM can be used or misused. The OP is misguided in that it says that the DSM itself is a problem. Diagnosing someone should never be taken lightly. You see individual physicians doing a good job, and you see others not doing a good job. The recommendation is that meds be prescribed in conjunction with therapy, but that doesn't always happen which contributes to the problem of over-medicating people.
My question is about the writers of the DSM being swayed by drug companies.
Are they? Because that's what the public generally thinks of when they read articles like the one in the OP or the video I posted.
People generally think that, but I would say it's less likely and I would be surprised to hear actual evidence supporting the claim. In this thread, people are making assumptions and running with them.
There are some wonderful options available that get one through the hardest things we face in life
and none of them are chemicals
i'm sorry, but not everyone believes in whatever spirituality you subscribe to. so please stop trying to talk it up as if it holds up scientifically with the known research that has been done on these medications. if you don't like them then don't use them. there is nothing wrong with prescription medications that do the things that they claim to do... they helped me when god didn't..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
There are some wonderful options available that get one through the hardest things we face in life
and none of them are chemicals
i'm sorry, but not everyone believes in whatever spirituality you subscribe to. so please stop trying to talk it up as if it holds up scientifically with the known research that has been done on these medications. if you don't like them then don't use them. there is nothing wrong with prescription medications that do the things that they claim to do... they helped me when god didn't..
Did I say anything about God or spirituality ... please don't assume
I was speaking of meditation, healthy habits, writing has helped me immensely
through the losses, etc etc.. there are many options that are non intrusive to the body,
chemicals can have long lasting, perhaps life long, life changing, side effects.
Look at the birth defects from Zanex that no one knew about ...just horrible
I understand when meds are necessary or wanted to help with depression, anxiety etc. But what I'm concerned about is that grief, in and alone what one feels after losing a loved one, should not be listed as a mental disorder. And that's the first feeling I get from reading this article or watching the video I posted. I just feel that it's quite a normal trait that everyone feels at one time or another; whether one feels more help is necessary is highly individualized.
I tend to go to meds as a last resort, and try to use meditation and yoga ( and the natural herb) to help with life's stressers before going for the chemicals. But I have been on anxiety meds when I was hospitalized and they were very much necessary.
There are some wonderful options available that get one through the hardest things we face in life
and none of them are chemicals
Sometimes that doesn't work for everybody all the time Pandora. If it does for you, then great.
Yes not for everyone of course and I know too much about mental health issues...
bi polar and schizophrenia is in our family and I know the need for meds
but we are speaking of grief a very normal needed process to grow past
the loss of a loved one and become whole again to realize the love remains after the loss
in my opinion it sends the wrong message one we are hearing an awful lot these days...
I understand when meds are necessary or wanted to help with depression, anxiety etc. But what I'm concerned about is that grief, in and alone what one feels after losing a loved one, should not be listed as a mental disorder.
Though grief can be a trigger for mega depression, suicide, causes anxiety, panic attacks, etc. If this can make the medical profession be more aware of the 'signs', helping with early diagnosis and not just shrug off people with grief going deeper than 'normal'. All kinds of conditions (whether mental or physical) which are 'normal' and 'part of life' are aided if needed (childbirth, for example), why not a very difficult process that not all can get through easily?
My concern is not so much grieving being included in 'depression' but how these classifications are being used by those that have access to this (along with other info), eg insurance companies, hospitals, etc.
I understand when meds are necessary or wanted to help with depression, anxiety etc. But what I'm concerned about is that grief, in and alone what one feels after losing a loved one, should not be listed as a mental disorder. And that's the first feeling I get from reading this article or watching the video I posted. I just feel that it's quite a normal trait that everyone feels at one time or another; whether one feels more help is necessary is highly individualized.
I tend to go to meds as a last resort, and try to use meditation and yoga ( and the natural herb) to help with life's stressers before going for the chemicals. But I have been on anxiety meds when I was hospitalized and they were very much necessary.
Having bereavement in the DSM isn't saying that it"s not normal. It's just categorizing a particular emotional experience. In a sense, it's even giving more validity to it, not less.
The DSM doesn't drive medications. Over medicating/inappropriate medicating comes from dynamics between particular M.D.s, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.
First off, grief is not a mental disorder. It's part of a healthy process after a tragedy.
I've been diagnosed as bi-polar for quite some time, and I will say for a fact that the medication does help. Sure, getting the right balance of medications is absolutely pure hell. Once I was able to get the right balance though, the difference was night and day. We're talking about a time length of about 10 years before I came to the realization that something had to be done. My Dr. suggested seeing a psychiatrist way back then, but I refused because I didn't want the bi-polar stigma. I finally caved and the difference is amazing.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Evidence that Doctors get kick backs to supplement their income from drug companies?
Is your doctor receiving pharmaceutical kickbacks?
Clark has been through a recent cycle with a sinus infection that started with as his usual seasonal allergies. The cost is always an unknown when his allergist writes any kind of prescription for him. In this case, she prescribed both an antibiotic and a nasal spray.
Well, it turned out that 10 days of antibiotics was $2.05. It was the cheapest script the consumer champ has ever had from any doctor at any time. On the other hand, the nasal spray was $90! He simply had to swallow hard and open his wallet.
Now, there are doctors who will write scripts in good faith without knowing the end cost to the patient. And then there are doctors who are on the payroll of giant pharmaceutical companies and push drugs irrespective of cost because it pads their pockets.
In fact, nearly 400 doctors across the country have received at least $100,000 from drug companies in 2009 and early 2010, according to an independent news organization called ProPublica.
If a doctor is getting a hundred grand or more each year from certain drug makers, what do you think they're going to write when you come in? A $4 generic script from Wal-Mart or Target? No, they're going write the brand name that gives them kickbacks.
Want to know if your doctor is on the take? Run their name and state through the Dollars for Docs page.
One Nevada doctor received more than $300,000 from drug companies. California has the most doctors (3,000) who are on the take. Perhaps there might be some legitimate reason why doctors would receive Big Pharma money, but Clark's not aware of one.
I've seen the slimy drug reps hanging out at doctors offices. My question is about the writers of the DSM being swayed by drug companies.
Are they? Because that's what the public generally thinks of when they read articles like the one in the OP or the video I posted.
why do you think the drug companies market directly to the patients now?
remember all of the "tell your doctor you need x drug" ads??
tell your doctor tell your doctor.
last i checked your doctor was supposed to tell YOU what you should do.
fact is, i work in an md office in illinois, and we can not get lunches brought to us by drug reps, we can not get post it notes or pens with a medication logo on it, and we can't play golf or go to dinner with reps like we used to be able to do. this is why the drug companies are blitzing the general public with their ads..
i am not saying that drug reps had an impact of the decisions the docs i work with made, but they have stuck with things that they know works for their paitients and are very reluctant to try new meds or products until they read more studies on them.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Kickbacks to Providers from Pharmaceutical Companies Still Going Strong
by NOLAN AND AUERBACH on NOVEMBER 18, 2011
Kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies cloud the medical judgment of health care providers and run afoul of federal and state anti-kickback laws. Most prominently, the federal Anti-kickback Act (AKS) was specifically designed to ensure that physicians prescribe drugs based on patient need, not personal greed.
In recent years, however, pharma companies have become increasingly clever in disguising illegal kickbacks. Most prominent are massive speaker bureaus, speaker programs, and advisory boards, all in an attempt to disguise excessive payments as fees for “speaking engagements,” “consulting services” or “training sessions.” Typically, instead of recruiting speakers and consultants based on their experience or credentials, dishonest companies will target physicians based on their potential prescription-writing volume. Furthermore, once physicians are accepted into their programs, the companies will unofficially require speakers to meet minimum prescription levels. Payment for “Research” and the collection of data are other techniques still used by wayward pharmaceutical companies.
The AKA is violated when a person or entity makes or accepts payment for referring, recommending or arranging for federally-funded medical items or services, including items or services provided under the Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. Violations of the AKA are per se violations of the federal False Claims Act, the government’s primary pharmaceutical fraud-fighting weapon.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct extensive return-on-investment analysis in devising and implementing sophisticated marketing schemes and programs. Dishonest pharmaceutical companies will skirt the AKA, knowing their bribes will influence prescribing habits and, in turn, result in the provision of goods and services that are more expensive and/or medically unnecessary or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. Over the last fifteen years, dozens of pharmaceutical companies have shelled out multimillion dollar settlement checks to quiet allegations that they showered doctors with illegal kickbacks. Up to several years ago many kickbacks were blatant bribes, including outright “grants,” tickets to sporting events, and other gifts and benefits.
Most illegal kickbacks to doctors are thinly-veiled incentives for off-label prescriptions, for uses that do not work. These business practices cause federal and state government health care programs to pay millions of dollars for prescriptions which are ineligible for payment. Notably, while a physician may prescribe a drug off-label, the law prohibits the provider from inking a kickback-tainted prescription for a Government Health Care Program beneficiary.
The government simply doesn’t have the resources to unravel these schemes, unless pharmaceutical employees and health care providers courageously provide the necessary inside information. For those who do take this stand, the rewards are potentially worth millions.
For more information about qui tam law and pharmaceutical fraud, contact Nolan and Auerbach, P.A.
any doctor, particularly a surgeon here that gives any sort of speaking engagement has to disclose any financial relationship with any drug or product company. this the the very first thing they talk about in their presentations. immediately following them introducing themselves they disclose any arrangements with outside companies that they might have....most of the ones here are affiliated with surgical tool or implant companies because they are doing research and using those products to compare them to other ones to publish their research. also, some of these surgeons design tools or implants and are affiliated with a company that will manufacture what they design.
not everything is a big money stealing conspiracy.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Oh the irony, I'm gonna keep this.
You know this really just seems to come down to a difference of opinion by the experts. Some think that by doing this, people will get help sooner in the process and that more people will be helped. The others feel that we will be over prescribing medications to people that just need to go through the normal process of grieving.
Not being a doctor it all seems a little silly to me. Why don't we just leave it up to the individual treating physician to determine what level of care their patient needs for whatever they are dealing with? This is the problem with writing a "bible" of something. It is good for reference, but it most certainly doesn't apply to all. But maybe I'm missing the point here.
but big money is terribly attractive if not corrupting
I feel people are told they need medication when they do not
and the first meds lead to another to correct side effects from the first
then another and another
so by the time one is leaving this world they are on 12 prescription drugs
maybe more, this extending life a matter of 5 to 10 years,
without the quality of life.
A comic line always come to mind
" what they don't tell ya it is the five years that you are peeing your pants
and forgetting your name"
not funny the older I am getting but a great point.
When its time to go it's time, its like any relationship, if the quality of the love is not there,
why stay? this applies to life at least for me, in my opinion.
I just believe this grief is a mental disorder is again glorifying the use of drugs
it sends the message that drugs can mask all
when some things are meant to be felt and worked through by one's self.
I completely agree with you that there are numerous 'good people' working as it should with people with problems. Unfortunately, there are also a number that, due to lack of funding, time, etc., will go the 'easy' route. But then again, we digress from the OP which speaks about the DSM which is just a classification of symptoms and has nothing to do with suggesting treatment. What is would concern me is how insurance companies, etc. use this info.....
"dying from a broken heart" is a real thing.
if given the choice, knowing what i know now, i would take the medication. from a personal and a scientific standpoint there is no reason for me not to. my struggle with depression has been well documented on this forum. i got better and recoverred, and i credit the meds, among a couple of other things, with saving my life.
i am speaking from my experience. but how many out there do not seek help and end up dead?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and none of them are chemicals
Couldn't agree more. Appropriate meds combined with other suitable therapies can greatly help with healing and full recovery.
I tend to believe that depression is depression, whether one goes through a 'natural process' or not. Grieving for a loss is a natural process but is not feeling down and lost after losing a job, separation, etc also a natural process? It would seem that having a clinical classification of depression following those kinds of events is OK but not for grieving (which can be so much worse).
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The problem is with how diagnosis and the DSM can be used or misused. The OP is misguided in that it says that the DSM itself is a problem. Diagnosing someone should never be taken lightly. You see individual physicians doing a good job, and you see others not doing a good job. The recommendation is that meds be prescribed in conjunction with therapy, but that doesn't always happen which contributes to the problem of over-medicating people.
People generally think that, but I would say it's less likely and I would be surprised to hear actual evidence supporting the claim. In this thread, people are making assumptions and running with them.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I was speaking of meditation, healthy habits, writing has helped me immensely
through the losses, etc etc.. there are many options that are non intrusive to the body,
chemicals can have long lasting, perhaps life long, life changing, side effects.
Look at the birth defects from Zanex that no one knew about ...just horrible
I tend to go to meds as a last resort, and try to use meditation and yoga ( and the natural herb) to help with life's stressers before going for the chemicals. But I have been on anxiety meds when I was hospitalized and they were very much necessary.
bi polar and schizophrenia is in our family and I know the need for meds
but we are speaking of grief a very normal needed process to grow past
the loss of a loved one and become whole again to realize the love remains after the loss
in my opinion it sends the wrong message one we are hearing an awful lot these days...
make it go away with a pill
Though grief can be a trigger for mega depression, suicide, causes anxiety, panic attacks, etc. If this can make the medical profession be more aware of the 'signs', helping with early diagnosis and not just shrug off people with grief going deeper than 'normal'. All kinds of conditions (whether mental or physical) which are 'normal' and 'part of life' are aided if needed (childbirth, for example), why not a very difficult process that not all can get through easily?
My concern is not so much grieving being included in 'depression' but how these classifications are being used by those that have access to this (along with other info), eg insurance companies, hospitals, etc.
Having bereavement in the DSM isn't saying that it"s not normal. It's just categorizing a particular emotional experience. In a sense, it's even giving more validity to it, not less.
The DSM doesn't drive medications. Over medicating/inappropriate medicating comes from dynamics between particular M.D.s, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.
I've been diagnosed as bi-polar for quite some time, and I will say for a fact that the medication does help. Sure, getting the right balance of medications is absolutely pure hell. Once I was able to get the right balance though, the difference was night and day. We're talking about a time length of about 10 years before I came to the realization that something had to be done. My Dr. suggested seeing a psychiatrist way back then, but I refused because I didn't want the bi-polar stigma. I finally caved and the difference is amazing.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm