Trump picks Dr. Oz to lead Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

[Valletta]

This already exists, at least with some Medicare plans; see Silver Sneakers.

It exists for some, those that pay into particular plans. It could be offered free to all 66 million who have Medicare.

 

[KCfromNC]

The FDA has some nerve calling out people for making "irresponsible and miselading" claims. After all, this is the same agency that approved Vioxx, which caused countless heart problems and killed thousands of people. Or Phenylephrine, which doesn't actually work. Or Aducanumab at the cost of $56k annually based on surrogate endpoints that show no true clinical benefit. The list goes on.

If we find 3 things that Dr. Oz was wrong about will you oppose him getting the spot? Or does this "well, this group isn't 100% perfect therefore anything they do is wrong" approach only work selectively?

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn’t have socialized-health-clubs on my bingo card, but okay.

It's part of the comprehensive, well thought out plan to massively reduce the size of government, dontchaknow?

 

[DaisyDay]

Chiquita was a Congressional staffer for a number of years.

What were Brooks-LaSure's duties as a staffer? I know she worked for a while on the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight and working on policy for Obamacare which actually seems related to the position. I don't see why that would in any way disqualify her. She actually worked on policy whereas Mehmet merely ran (and lost) for the US Senate in a state he hadn't lived in and wasn't registered in until a month before the election.

He had been appointed to President Trump’s “Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition” but ran for office while still serving which was a violation of the Hatch Act.

I prefer someone with medical education and training to head Medicare.

Why would you prefer someone with no clue about public health administration? Mehmet Cengiz was a fine surgeon but what relevant experience does he have with Medicare or Medicaid other than his staff, perhaps, having to bill appropriately. Well, he has invested millions in insurance companies that the CMS oversees, so that's something. (Linkie). Also concerning is that Mehmet regularly and notoriously promoted bogus "remedies" for weight loss, etc. and currently hawks a line of "supplements".

 

[DaisyDay]

No, that the FDA and CDC stop hawking products that they have a vested interest in.

Is it okay with you if the heads of the FDA and CDC hawk products and instruments (specific insurance companies) that they have a financial interest in? As far as I know, the agencies themselves don't profit.

 

[DaisyDay]

It exists for some, those that pay into particular plans. It could be offered free to all 66 million who have Medicare.

Generally, people don't usually pay to get into Medicare Advantage plans, privatized Medicare, but these bells and whistles are offered to entice people away from traditional Medicare that mainly covers medical expenses for anyone if the provider accepts Medicare. With Medicare Advantage, most patients are restricted to "preferred providers" which change often and lists are often outdated and unreliable (plus they can require "prior authorization", routinely denied not by doctors but by clerical staff).

To make this generally available to anyone receiving any form of Medicare would raise expenses. My understanding of the oncoming administration's goals is that costs must be slashed.

 

[probinson]

If we find 3 things that Dr. Oz was wrong about will you oppose him getting the spot?

First of all, I may have only listed 3 things, but there are plenty more.

Secondly, I already said that I am not in favor of Dr. Oz getting this spot.

 

[probinson]

Is it okay with you if the heads of the FDA and CDC hawk products and instruments (specific insurance companies) that they have a financial interest in? As far as I know, the agencies themselves don't profit.

An awful lot of funding comes from pharmaceutical companies.

About 45% of the FDA's budget, or $2.7 billion, comes from industry user fees, according to a fact sheet released by the FDA in November 2020. The other 55%, or $3.2 billion, comes from federal funding. ​

​

A further breakdown of the agency's total budget does show, depending on the department, industry fees can account for most of the funding, however.​

​

For regulatory activities involving human drugs (which account for a third of the agency's total budget), 65%, or about $656 million, is funded by industry user fees. ​

​

For biologics, which includes vaccines and represents 7% of the FDA's total budget, industry fees pay about 40%, or around $337 million. ​

​

While there is a concern industry-based funding – which increased nearly 42%between the fiscal years 2017 and 2021 – may pose a conflict of interest, the FDA has said its drug approval decisions are independent of where the funding comes from.​

​

Fact check: Some, but not all, of FDA's funding comes from the companies whose products it approves

A post circulating on social media distorts how much funding the FDA receives from the companies whose products it approves.

www.usatoday.com

​

There is a clear conflict of interest in pharmaceutical companies funding the approvals of the drugs they will profit from. This study shows that when a study is funded by a pharmaceutical company, it is more likely to yield favorable results than those studies that are independently funded.

57 publications were included for evaluation in Parts 1 and 2 of this article. Published drug trials that were financed by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors declared a financial conflict of interest, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts. The results were also interpreted favorably more often than in independently financed trials. Furthermore, there was evidence that pharmaceutical companies influenced study protocols in a way that was favorable to themselves. The methodological quality of trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not found to be any worse than that of trials financed in other ways.​

​

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2868984/​

Then there is the revolving door between regulatory agencies that go on to work for pharmaceutical companies.

More than a quarter of the Food and Drug Administration employees who approved cancer and hematology drugs from 2001 through 2010 left the agency and now work or consult for pharmaceutical companies, according to research published by a prominent medical journal Tuesday.​

​

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry

​

​

Our regulatory agencies are in dire need of reform.

 

[DaisyDay]

An awful lot of funding comes from pharmaceutical companies.

About 45% of the FDA's budget, or $2.7 billion, comes from industry user fees, according to a fact sheet released by the FDA in November 2020. The other 55%, or $3.2 billion, comes from federal funding. ​

​

A further breakdown of the agency's total budget does show, depending on the department, industry fees can account for most of the funding, however.​

​

For regulatory activities involving human drugs (which account for a third of the agency's total budget), 65%, or about $656 million, is funded by industry user fees. ​

​

For biologics, which includes vaccines and represents 7% of the FDA's total budget, industry fees pay about 40%, or around $337 million. ​

​

While there is a concern industry-based funding – which increased nearly 42%between the fiscal years 2017 and 2021 – may pose a conflict of interest, the FDA has said its drug approval decisions are independent of where the funding comes from.​

​

Fact check: Some, but not all, of FDA's funding comes from the companies whose products it approves

A post circulating on social media distorts how much funding the FDA receives from the companies whose products it approves.

www.usatoday.com

​

There is a clear conflict of interest in pharmaceutical companies funding the approvals of the drugs they will profit from. This study shows that when a study is funded by a pharmaceutical company, it is more likely to yield favorable results than those studies that are independently funded.

57 publications were included for evaluation in Parts 1 and 2 of this article. Published drug trials that were financed by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors declared a financial conflict of interest, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts. The results were also interpreted favorably more often than in independently financed trials. Furthermore, there was evidence that pharmaceutical companies influenced study protocols in a way that was favorable to themselves. The methodological quality of trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not found to be any worse than that of trials financed in other ways.​

​

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2868984/​

Then there is the revolving door between regulatory agencies that go on to work for pharmaceutical companies.

More than a quarter of the Food and Drug Administration employees who approved cancer and hematology drugs from 2001 through 2010 left the agency and now work or consult for pharmaceutical companies, according to research published by a prominent medical journal Tuesday.​

​

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry

​

​

Our regulatory agencies are in dire need of reform.

Who else can afford to fund the trials better than the companies? The revolving door problem is government wide. I haven't noticed that the upcoming government is prepared to put a stop to it, but this time around, they seem to be putting more heads of industry and lobbyists in charge of the regulating agencies than they did last time.

 

[probinson]

Who else can afford to fund the trials better than the companies?

As the above post notes, pharmaceutical companies don't just fund the trials. They also influence study protocols in a way that is favorable to themselves. Providing that funding is a clear conflict of interest. Do you really think that pharmaceutical companies would pay all this money for trials that would find their drugs unsafe and/or ineffective?

 

[Valletta]

What were Brooks-LaSure's duties as a staffer? I know she worked for a while on the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight and working on policy for Obamacare which actually seems related to the position. I don't see why that would in any way disqualify her. She actually worked on policy whereas Mehmet merely ran (and lost) for the US Senate in a state he hadn't lived in and wasn't registered in until a month before the election.

He had been appointed to President Trump’s “Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition” but ran for office while still serving which was a violation of the Hatch Act.


Why would you prefer someone with no clue about public health administration? Mehmet Cengiz was a fine surgeon but what relevant experience does he have with Medicare or Medicaid other than his staff, perhaps, having to bill appropriately. Well, he has invested millions in insurance companies that the CMS oversees, so that's something. (Linkie). Also concerning is that Mehmet regularly and notoriously promoted bogus "remedies" for weight loss, etc. and currently hawks a line of "supplements".

Dr. Oz received a degree in biology, magna cum laude, fromt Harvard University. Oz received his MD and MBA degrees from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Penn's Wharton School. These schools have rigorous programs and Dr. Oz can quickly pick up new information.

 

[SeekFirst0]

What does he know about Medicaid or Medicare? Is he actually qualified? That makes me have second thoughts

Oz has also in the past given a platform to basically promote transgenderism by having people on his show who were men who wanted to be women and vice versa. Does he believe in this nonsense? He needs to come out and explain with a yes or no. If so, that already disqualifies him.

 

[DaisyDay]

As the above post notes, pharmaceutical companies don't just fund the trials. They also influence study protocols in a way that is favorable to themselves. Providing that funding is a clear conflict of interest. Do you really think that pharmaceutical companies would pay all this money for trials that would find their drugs unsafe and/or ineffective?

Yes, and it does happen.

The FDA will never be perfect, but it's pretty good.

 

[Pommer]

Oz has also in the past given a platform to basically promote transgenderism by having people on his show who were men who wanted to be women and vice versa. Does he believe in this nonsense? He needs to come out and explain with a yes or no. If so, that already disqualifies him.

Should government administrators set aside their own values & prejudices whilst doing their government jobs?

 

[SeekFirst0]

Should government administrators set aside their own values & prejudices whilst doing their government jobs?

If someone believes that a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man, I don‘t believe they are fit for office.

 

[RileyG]

If someone believes that a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man, I don‘t believe they are fit for office.

I agree. Sad this delusion is a reality for many.

 

[probinson]

The FDA will never be perfect, but it's pretty good.

You and I have vastly different definitions of what constitutes "pretty good".

From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?

Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of investigational medicines before they hit the market. But do they have sufficient independence from the companies they are meant to regulate? Maryanne Demasi investigates Over the past decades, regulatory...

www.bmj.com