Question for the New Year: Why is There Next to No Reaction to the Gilded Age of Health Care?

For the New Year, it is time to ponder- why is there still no organized outrage over the ongoing incompetent, uncaring, self-interested, conflicted, and often outright corrupt leadership of health care organizations we have documented incessantly on Health Care Renewal?For example, just a few days ago, we documented a series of cases in which large US and multinational health care organizations settled cases alleging they deceptively marketed drugs so as to exaggerate their benefits and conceal their harms, bribed doctors and officials  outside of the US, gave kickbacks to US doctors, defrauded the US government, and monopolized markets for drugs, yet few leaders, and no top leaders of the companies involved suffered any negative consequences for authorizing, directing, or implementing these activities.  We have discussed many previous legal settlements involving similar bad behavior and similar impunity by the leaders of the organizations involved.   Again and again we have discussed how large organizations, often but not always drug, biotechnology and device companies, have manipulated the scientific literature (e.g., see examples of manipulation of clinical research, suppression of clinical research, and specific practices such as ghost-writing of apparently scholarly articles to benefit vested interests.)   We have discussed overblown compensation that made top managers and other organizational insiders rich without any rationale other than their abili...
Source: Health Care Renewal - Category: Health Medicine and Bioethics Commentators Tags: propaganda governance finance leadership Source Type: blogs

Related Links:

Authors: PMID: 32493135 [PubMed - in process]
Source: Tumori - Category: Cancer & Oncology Tags: Tumori Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s):
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s):
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s):
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s): Gilead Amit
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s):
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s):
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s): Chelsea Whyte
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s): Adam Vaughan
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
Publication date: 6 June 2020Source: New Scientist, Volume 246, Issue 3285Author(s): Jim Peebles
Source: New Scientist - Category: Science Source Type: research
More News: Biotechnology | Blogging | Government | Health | Health Management | Health Medicine & Bioethics Commentators | History of Medicine | Legislation | Marketing | Politics | Recession