Dr. Rost provides services as a pharmaceutical marketing expert witness. For more info see: Drug Expert Witness. Dr. Peter Rost email. Copyright © 2006-2013 InSync Communication. All rights reserved. Terms of use agreement, privacy policy and the computer fraud and abuse act.


Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

Physicians for a National Health Program

Check them out here.

I fled socialized medicine, then I discovered how we're robbed by the U.S. "healthcare system."

In the end, this is about best care at the lowest cost. Right now we have, on average, the worst care at highest cost.

It's time for change.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting but simplistic. And wrong in some places. For example, AZT CTs were funded by the Wellcome Foundation, an ethical (remember them?)Pharma company which then was backed by a charitable trust before the greedy and corrupt Glaxo management bought them out and destroyed them (a pattern thence sadly repated many times - truly ethical pharma companies asset-stripped by sharks). FDA fast-tracked Wellcome's studies but they were not government funded.

I think that major clinical trials for innovative drugs with potential life-saving (as against merely enhancing) potential should certainly be centrally funded however, with the proviso that prices are then fixed at an affordable level for successful candidates, rather than just what market rate big Pharma can screw.

Independent trials will eliminate the tendency of big pharma to suppress bad news, like Vioxx, and remove some of the financial risk to them. It's a win-win.

But the line between socialized and centrally-funded health care in general isn't easy to see. Who funds new hospitals? Who decides what an appropriate level of "baseline care" is to be provided by your tax dollars, and how? Taxation seems like the thin end of a large wedge, given government and big pharma addiction to bureaucracy.

In the UK, we're trying to step back from the huge cost of socialised medicine, and making a huge mess of it. All private finance initiatives are showing that all private companies involved in heathcare want to do is make as much money out of both governments and patients as they possibly can.

There's no easy answer. Until altruism regains the ground lost to greed in healthcare-related services, the poor are going to suffer whatever happens.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am glad that you discovered this site. I discovered it some time ago...via one of your postings. Healthcare may well be expensive in Gr. Britain, as the above poster states. In The Netherlands I was extremely happy with "socialized medicine", but at the time it was optional above a certain income level. You could keep insured through the same entity - a private insurer -as a privately insured person. Now, they have mandatory private insurance, since January 2006, and you can find it on their government website. In the U.S. I was privately insured, and yet, none of my costs were covered. So I paid a high monthly premium plus cash for every office visit, surgery, etc. Then I was cancelled after the first surgery, although I did not file - preexisting condition. I could also not get work. Many conditions such as asthma, hypertension etc. are disabilities, and insurers may not alow the employer to hire you. So, I did temp jobs, of all kinds. I have been on Medicare for several years now. I love it. To make that system work, it should be treated as an insurer. To start out, it could be optional up to a certain income level. We could also regulate insurers, as in The Netherlands. The question of how hospitals are paid for is easy. Same way they are paid for now. Patients are sick, go to the hospital, and the hospital charges. Now the insurer pays. The insurer may still pay. The insurer might be Medicare. Monthly contributions to Medicare would have to go up, but be on a sliding scale, less than health insurance now, but most importantly, if you are sick you can go and see that doctor you need to see, and go and get that test you need. People also could continue working and contributing. Welfare for the disabled is expensive, because it involves all costs, not just medical costs. Medicare is putting restraints on fraud, and is asking patients to report it. We need to get rid of Medical Malpractice Awards. We need to stop the remaining 34% of scheduled reimbursement cuts to physicians - 5% this year has already been stopped. And doctors need to help patients, not shovel reams of paper. That is a too expensive use of their time and expertise. Yes, Peter, I am glad you finally got to this topic!! Funding of hospitals and clinics need not at all be centralized.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pharma Giles: We have in he U.S. Medicare part D for drugs, Apparently, in its first year it was too complicated for most, and did not work for many. It works like a charm for me. I save hundreds of dollars every month. With Medicare I see the doctor I want to, get all the necessary tests, and pay a 20% copayment. As a private patient, see above, I was insured, paid more than $ 400.--/mo in health insurance, never got even one bandaid back. When I had surgery I paid for the whole surgery, and more than once, because of fraud, and was in addition cancelled by my insurer. I continued paying cash to my doctors, but did not get referrals for necessary tests, and I would not have been able to pay for those. Healthcare is expensive. Insurance is necessary to spread the cost and risk, and government can take over some risk. Government already pays full cost for the disabled, the chronically ill and poor, and they may be excluded from employment here. That adds unnecessary (often) transfer payments to the overall cost to society (the taxpayer).

Anonymous Anonymous said...

thank you, Dr Rost


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Anonymous. I think there's a lot to be said for the US Medicare system and I think something like Medicare is the way the UK will eventually go.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home