MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Health Care-industrial Complex

2009· editorial· en· W2170018013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert J. Isaacson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Angle Orthodontist · 2009
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallelsHealth careOrder (exchange)LawManagementMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyBusinessEngineeringOperations managementFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us to “Beware the military-industrial complex.” This term, written by the President's speechwriter, Malcolm Moos, has many parallels in history. The crux of the matter is that, as a society develops, a complex and variable relationship between suppliers and consumers will also evolve.Today we are hearing talk of a health care-industrial complex. A leading story of the moment is Iowa's United States Senator Grassley, a prominent figure in health care reform, proposing more sunshine and disclosure of physicians' financial relationships with health care industries.Currently, the Senator sent a letter to about 30 institutions which included my alma mater, The University of Minnesota. The letter cited a spine surgeon faculty member and his consulting fees from a locally based medical device firm, which are said to total $1.2 million for the period 2003–2007. Even more surprising was the comment from one expert who called the amount high, but not an “order of magnitude different than what a lot of doctors are getting.”1Other recent headlines: Professor at Canada's McGill University Admits Signing Research Generated by Drug Maker.2 Surgeon who led tainted study is leaving his job (at Washington University in St. Louis).3 Medical schools and drug companies too cozy.4 All of this appeared in the national media in just a few days!Are we on this kind of slippery slope? Is there reason for concern in orthodontics? Of course our industrial-orthodontic relationships have changed over time. Many orthodontic suppliers have merged with very large conglomerates. Often the orthodontic component of these conglomerates is a relatively small component of the corporation. A conglomerate may operate under the reasonable assumption that business is business and health care will respond to the same marketing techniques that work everywhere else.At our end the corporate contribution to meetings is the financial backbone of our national and many other meetings. Many meetings have evolved to where corporate backing is almost indispensible. Still, it is critical to remember that the ultimate goal of a corporation is profits and that is very appropriate. However, at the same time our primary goal is care of the patient and the potential for these two varied interests to come into conflict is always present.We are all aware of the orthodontists who speak under the aegis of a corporation at our annual meeting and elsewhere. The risk is always present for the corporate personnel to want to edit professional presentations to insure that the company's products are represented only in the best possible light. This is only one existing example of an area of a potential conflict of interest.How does Senator Grassley propose to address the conflict of interest question? He is proposing an act entitled the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to make doctor-industry ties more transparent. This would bring more sunshine to the current faculty industrial relationships. It apparently would work through the Physician-University ties. Certainly we would benefit greatly from increased sunshine in such relationships in orthodontics. Perhaps sunshine would act as a preventative action and avoid getting caught in situations analogous to those currently before us.The principle of increased sunshine appears to be the only practical approach put forward thus far. Physicians have traditionally been overseen by hospital affiliations. Orthodontics, as a cottage industry, has had few such relationships. The area of the health care industrial complex is outside the realm of the state boards. The only apparently common denominator in orthodontics might be our professional organization, but this question is outside of their realm also.None of us, including the industrial interests, want some political body to see a need to act in the interest of protecting the public. Let's act to find a reasonable way to deal with this potentially hot button issue ourselves so that we may pass a clean torch to future orthodontists. In the words of Albert Einstein, “It is every man's duty to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it” and we have all been richly gifted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0030.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.491
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Angle OrthodontistSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207