The NHS Doctor can supplement their income by private practice, but also from the Pharma Industry.
In the USA they are transparent about this, So what do they get?
Anyone one who reads the blog knows that people get compensated for working with the pharmaceutical industry. This paper aims to document this.
However, it is not about getting wads of cash and something secretive.
In the US they have taken a path of openness and doctors have to declare these earnings. So you can look at publically available databases to find out who got what.
Does this mean that the people receiving money from pharma are bought?
Come-on People, Neuros have more integrity than that. Does it mean they will push the pharma drug? In most cases, the pwMS choose what they will take.
People are providing a service and it is correct that they are reimbursed for this.
You don't go to a mechanic and expect them to repair your car for free. Why should pharma get free advice?
So 50% of Neuros don't get any pharma dosh. Is this because they are "holier than thou" or because their opinion isn't worth hearing.
I suspect the latter for many. After all MS may not be their speciality and the area of their interest may have no pharma cash
However, key opinion leaders, no doubt, do OK from this. They are on many advisory Boards. Some pay the taxman whereas others put it into discretionary funds. I could give examples of both, but I won't.
However, when they do get something the average of about $80 is hardly something to shout about. Hardly the stuff that would get a supermodel out of bed. As a MouseDoctor it wouldn't get me out of Bed either.
This probably represents a bit of travel money or as can be seen food and drink, which is the major fraction of the cost. Alcoholic drinks are excluded so the Neuros are not dining on Dom Perignon.
If you go for a private consultation the neuro gets more than $81, should we have a list of these expenses? I guess that could be another publication.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze research and non-research payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database.
METHODS: In this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce data book, 2015.
RESULTS: In 2015, approximately 51% of US neurologists received non-research payments totaling $6,210,414. The median payment per physician was $81. Payments to the top 10% of compensated neurologists amounted to $5,278,852 (84.5%). Food and beverage was the most frequent category (86.5% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for non-continuing medical education activities (58%). The top sponsor of non-research payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($1,162,900; 18.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).
CONCLUSIONS: The Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensation from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns over the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.