[limelight]

The problem is that there's absolutely no incentive for doctors to act ethically. You don't win any points for ignoring drug company marketing.

Vendor marketing exists in all fields, technology included. The difference is that when I'm spending money on a vendor as a tech manager it's coming out of my budget. I have an incentive to make sure that the spending is intelligent and the solution is effective.

Where is the incentive for doctors to do that? They're spending other people's money on other people's problems.

[jlarocco]

That comparison doesn't work.

As a tech manager, you're not using your personal funds, either, you're using your employer's money.

Further, if a doctor's prescription doesn't work, or is too expensive, the patients can get a second opinion, and the doctor can lose the person as a patient. An employer may not even have that option with a tech manager.

[morgante]

> As a tech manager, you're not using your personal funds, either, you're using your employer's money.

Right, but I am spending the money of my company. They control my salary and advancement, and I also have a fixed pool to draw from.

Doctors are spending money for insurance companies.

[jlarocco]

How is it different?

The insurance company can investigate the efficacy of prescriptions and stop paying for ones that don't work. The article says some of them have done exactly that with Oxycontin.

At the other end, if the pain killer isn't working, a patient can go to a different doctor who will prescribe something else.