Good Health versus Good Business

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/business/01beam.html

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a currently available treatment for prostate cancer. While it can be highly effective, concern has risen over its high profit potential. While insurers typically pay $2000 or less for prostate cancer surgeries or radioactive seed implantation, they are willing up pay sums exceeding $50,000 for IMRT treatment. Thus, IMRT has more profit potential than other prostate cancer treatments and the high initial investment required for equipment and software may encourage doctors to recommend the treatment even in instances when it has no significant advantage for the patient. Some urologists admit that profit considerations were a factor in their decision to purchase the IMRT system but also maintain that the IMRT system offers superior prostate cancer treatment. However, IMRT is more costly than other treatments, requires more time commitment from the patients and there is no medical consensus on whether it is a superior to other treatments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/health/30drug.html

Studies in the New England Journal of Medicine have suggested that aggressive treatment of anemia in kidney patients may increase the likelihood of death or heart problems. A panel of doctors for the National Kidney Foundation is expected to meet early next year to make new recommendations for treatment. However, anemia drugs marketed by Amgen and Johnson & Johnson constitute a $10 billion market and the National Kidney Foundation is largely funded by industry. Amgen donated $4 million to the foundation last year and the foundation's recently released treatment guidelines encourage more aggressive anemia treatment than the FDA recommends, leading some to believe the panel's future recommendations will be tainted by influence from the drug companies.