<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: agreement,</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'agreement,'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22agreement%2C%22&t=%22agreement%2C%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:04:05 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Democrats Favor Trade Sanctions on Americans</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2846347&amp;cid=t_255409_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F_TKxtI_qwPg%2F</link>
            <description>Scott Lincicome sharpens his pencil today and calculates that Congressional failure to ratify the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement&amp;#8211;a deal that was signed almost three full years ago&amp;#8211;has so far cost American exporters $2 billion.  That tally increases $1.9 million each and every day.
Since that time [the trade agreement signing], American exporters have paid approximately $1.9 million per day in Colombian tariffs that they wouldn&amp;#8217;t have paid if the Democrat-controlled Congress had just passed the FTA back then and thus allowed it to enter into force. By my math, that means that Congress&amp;#8217; and (now) the President&amp;#8217;s partisan stalling has resulted in a pointless tax on American businesses of almost $2 billion ($1.9798 billion = 1042 days times $1.9 million) a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2846347</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:32:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2846347</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>DSM V Update and Transparency</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2678683&amp;cid=t_255409_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F08%2F07%2Fdsm-v-update-and-transparency%2F</link>
            <description>Discussion: Is the Risk Syndrome for Psychosis Risky Business?&amp;#8221;, this describes in detail the proposal for a new disorder called &amp;#8220;Risk Syndrome for Psychosis.&amp;#8221; You can access the proposed criteria for the disorder, including the text discussing characteristics, associated features, differential diagnosis, etc&amp;#8230;. So far, there are 23 comments posted, constituting a rigorous debate about the pros and cons of the proposal.

Whether or not 23 comments constitutes a &amp;#8220;rigorous debate&amp;#8221; anywhere, I&amp;#8217;d point out of the seven work group members featured at the top of this article, only two of them bothered to engage in this live discussion. What&amp;#8217;s that say about their interests in engaging in actual, legitimate scholarly discussion? (On a side note, if y...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2678683</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:42:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2678683</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Buy American, Destroy American Jobs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2510273&amp;cid=t_255409_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZOD3T40B9_U%2F</link>
            <description>The &amp;#8220;buy America&amp;#8221; provision in the misnamed stimulus bill was supposed to protect jobs in the U.S.  Alas, by encouraging foreign protectionism, the measure is likely to end up destroying American jobs.
Indeed, the provision has all the earmarks of a grand political fiasco.  Reports the Financial Times:
Confusion reins. For fear of missing out on contracts, many companies are demanding that all their suppliers are Buy American-compliant regardless of any exemptions.
“Those companies that can comply are of course thrilled and are trumpeting that in their marketing. Those that cannot are in agony and are losing business and cutting workers,” says David Ralston, a government procurement lawyer at Foley &amp; Lardner. “The many companies that find themselves in the gray area...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2510273</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:35:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2510273</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Novo Nordisk Accepts Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Settles, Pays Fine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2416846&amp;cid=t_255409_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Fnovo-nordisk-accepts-deferred.html</link>
            <description>Back in early 2007, we noted that several large drug companies were under investigation for possible involvement in the Iraq oil-for-food sanctions scandal. More than two years later, a US Department of Justice press release from last week includes the following:Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo), a Danish corporation based in Bagsvaerd, Denmark, has agreed to pay a $9 million penalty for illegal kickbacks paid to the former Iraqi government. Novo agreed to pay the fine as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department. The matter is part of the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.A criminal information was filed today against Novo in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charging Novo with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fra...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2416846</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 21:58:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2416846</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>WellCare Settles, Accepts Deferred Prosecution Agreement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2389728&amp;cid=t_255409_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Fwellcare-settles-accepts-deferred.html</link>
            <description>'Tis the season for deferred prosecution agreements for health care organizations. As reported by the Wall Street Journal:WellCare Health Plans Inc. agreed to pay $80 million to settle a Florida Medicaid fraud investigation that has embroiled the company since the fall of 2007, previously prompting a management shake-up and restatement of more than three years of the company's earnings.The settlement resolves federal and state criminal probes into allegations that WellCare defrauded Florida benefits programs for low-income adults and children of about $40 million by improperly inflating what it spent on care.WellCare, based in Tampa, Fla., administers medical benefits for about 2.5 million enrollees in government-sponsored plans in several states.Under a deferred prosecution agreement, the...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2389728</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 19:21:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2389728</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>JAMA and DeAngelis Respond But DeAngelis Should Resign</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2287231&amp;cid=t_255409_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2Fjama-and-deangelis-respond-but-deangelis-should-resign%2F</link>
            <description>In an attempt to whitewash their own actions and responsibility to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing, Catherine D. DeAngelis and Phil B. Fontanarosa &amp;#8212; editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) &amp;#8212; published an editorial defending their handling of a conflict of interest and blasting the professor who brought it to their attention. In a classic example of shooting the messenger, it&amp;#8217;s my opinion that DeAngelis and Fontanarosa absolve themselves of all blame, and suggest that any reports where they called Lincoln Memorial University Assistant Dean of Students and Professor Jonathan Leo Ph.D., a &amp;#8220;a nothing and a nobody&amp;#8221; were &amp;#8220;erroneous.&amp;#8221; (In other words, the editors of JAMA are apparently suggesting that the Wall...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2287231</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:38:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2287231</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Yet More Investigations of UMDNJ</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1947099&amp;cid=t_255409_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fyet-more-investigations-of-umdnj.html</link>
            <description>We have frequently discussed the plight of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest health care university in the US. Facing indictment for federal crimes, the university operated under a deferred prosecution agreement and the supervision of a federal monitor from 2005 to 2007. We most recently blogged about UMDNJ here, and see links backward.UMDNJ may no longer be under the monitor's supervision, ostensibly because of internal reforms of its management, but a recent story on NJ.com from the Newark Star-Ledger questioned the success of these reforms.The state's medical university was overcharging the federal government by millions of dollars, even while under federal oversight for similar violations of the law, according to internal reports.Those document...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1947099</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:18:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1947099</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>This seems fair</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1909357&amp;cid=t_255409_177_f&amp;fid=38134&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fbabybound.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F10%2F21%2Fthis-seems-fair%2F</link>
            <description>I see absolutely no flaw in this agreement.  This baby machine Kelly better get off her ass and start producing so I don&amp;#8217;t have to drag her into court and wave this legally binding contract in her face.
Don&amp;#8217;t make me do it K.  Get to work!
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; (Source: B a b y B o u n d)</description>
            <author>B a b y B o u n d</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1909357</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:55:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1909357</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cephalon Pays $425 Million For Medicaid Fraud</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1841253&amp;cid=t_255409_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F406366468%2F</link>
            <description>This looks to be the biggest such case involving a biotech. And this involves three - count &amp;#8216;em, three - drugs that were allegedly marketed for years on an off-label basis in order to greatly widen the potential patient populations, according to court documents. The Cephalon payment includes $375 million in a nationwide Medicaid fraud settlement and $50 million for a corporate criminal plea (here&amp;#8217;s the settlement agreement).
The drugs in question - Actiq, a &amp;#8220;medicated lozenge on a handle&amp;#8221; approved only for pain in cancer patients and later linked to some 100 deaths; the Gabitril epilepsy med for adults and children over 12 years, but was pitched as an alternative to Valium and Zanax, and for treating for depression; and Provigil, a narcolepsy med that was promoted f...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1841253</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:43:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1841253</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Counterfeit Trade Deal May Hurt Generics: Activists</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1806490&amp;cid=t_255409_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F395106149%2F</link>
            <description>More than 100 advocacy groups from around the world are asking officials from countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to immediately publish the draft text of the document. The concern is that undisclosed provisions will undermine access to low-cost generics, among other things, such as require Internet service providers to monitor all consumer Internet communications.
&amp;#8220;The lack of transparency in negotiations of an agreement that will affect the fundamental rights of citizens of the world is fundamentally undemocratic,&amp;#8221; the groups wrote in their letter. &amp;#8220;It is made worse by the public perception that lobbyists from the music, film, software, video games, luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries have had ready access to the ACTA text and pre-text d...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1806490</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:20:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1806490</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My client won’t do as I say</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1386810&amp;cid=t_255409_109_f&amp;fid=34753&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.relaxedtherapist.com%2Fmy-client-wont-do-as-i-say%2Fwhatif%2F</link>
            <description>One of the major challenges to the therapeutic alliance arises when the client fails to follow the therapist’s advice. Therapists can often be heard to complain that clients reject their instructions (sorry, “advice”) out of hand:
Don&amp;#8217;t they want to get better? Why won&amp;#8217;t they do as they&amp;#8217;re told?
When considering how you will respond to a client who is not following your advice, there are three questions you should ask yourself:

why should your clients do anything you say?
why should your client do what you&amp;#8217;re saying now?
why wouldn&amp;#8217;t clients follow your suggestions?


Why should clients do anything you say?
Take a moment to consider your role and relationship to your clients. Are you:

a taxi-driver: your client presents you with a destination to which ...</description>
            <author>The Relaxed Therapist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1386810</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:16:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1386810</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who Will Monitor the Monitors?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1155817&amp;cid=t_255409_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F01%2Fwho-will-monitor-monitors.html</link>
            <description>We have discussed deferred prosecution agreements involving a number of notable US health care organizations, e.g, a hospital (Roger Williams Medical Center), health care university (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey), not-for-profit health care insurer (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island), pharmaceutical company (Bristol-Myers-Squibb), and multiple medical device companies (Biomet, DePuy, Smith and Nephew, and Zimmer).Deferred prosecution agreements may be made between federal prosecutors and corporations, including not-for-profit corporations. I am not a lawyer, but my best interpretation is that pursuant to these agreements, usually the corporation involved agrees to specific compliance measures, often including the appointment of a &quot;monitor,&quot; and in return, the pro...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1155817</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:35:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1155817</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cephalon Will Pay $425M For Off-Label Marketing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1015911&amp;cid=t_255409_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F181979143%2F</link>
            <description>The drugmaker struck a deal with the US Attorney in Philadelphia, and will sign a corporate integrity agreement after agreeing to a misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The probe reportedly focused on whether Cephalon sales reps were improperly marketing its Provigil narcolepsy drug, which docs have prescribed to treat depression and ADHD.
The settlement doesn&amp;#8217;t come as a surprise. Cephalon has been under a microscope for off-label marketing for awhile. Last February, the FDA sent the drugmaker a warning letter ordering an end to promotional material for Provigil that included claims that the drug could be used to treat fatigue, which isn&amp;#8217;t an approved use. 
Two months ago, Cephalon sent letters to docs this week warning that several deaths have been linked...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1015911</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:30:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1015911</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My client won’t do as I say</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2580261&amp;cid=t_255409_109_f&amp;fid=34753&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.relaxedtherapist.com%2F%3Fp%3D57</link>
            <description>One of the major challenges to the therapeutic alliance arises when the client fails to follow the therapistâ€™s advice. Therapists can often be heard to complain that clients reject their instructions (sorry, â€œadviceâ€) out of hand:
Don&amp;#8217;t they want to get better? Why won&amp;#8217;t they do as they&amp;#8217;re told?
When considering how you will respond to a client who is not following your advice, there are three questions you should ask yourself:

why should your clients do anything you say?
why should your client do what you&amp;#8217;re saying now?
why wouldn&amp;#8217;t clients follow your suggestions?


Why should clients do anything you say?
Take a moment to consider your role and relationship to your clients. Are you:

a taxi-driver: your client presents you with a destinat...</description>
            <author>The Relaxed Therapist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2580261</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:00:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2580261</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My client won”t do as I say</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2561333&amp;cid=t_255409_109_f&amp;fid=34753&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.relaxedtherapist.com%2F%3Fp%3D57</link>
            <description>One of the major challenges to the therapeutic alliance arises when the client fails to follow the therapistâ€™s advice. Therapists can often be heard to complain that clients reject their instructions (sorry, â€œadviceâ€) out of hand:
Don&amp;#8221;t they want to get better? Why won&amp;#8221;t they do as they&amp;#8221;re told?
When considering how you will respond to a client who is not following your advice, there are three questions you should ask yourself:

why should your clients do anything you say?
why should your client do what you&amp;#8221;re saying now?
why wouldn&amp;#8221;t clients follow your suggestions?


Why should clients do anything you say?
Take a moment to consider your role and relationship to your clients. Are you:

a taxi-driver: your client presents you with a destinat...</description>
            <author>The Relaxed Therapist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2561333</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:00:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2561333</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

