<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: contributions</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 'contributions'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22contributions%22&t=%22contributions%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:23:03 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>A Snippet of Psychology’s Scientific Roots</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4734205&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F04%2F21%2Fa-snippet-of-psychologys-scientific-roots%2F</link>
            <description>Throughout the years, sometimes it seems that the public has been iffy about psychology and psychologists. Part of the problem is a lack of knowledge. Past surveys have shown that many people have no idea what psychologists even do.
More recent research has found that the public largely views psychology in a positive light. But people still have a limited understanding of the discipline and don’t view it as a hard science.
A 1998 survey revealed that both adults and college faculty viewed the physical sciences more favorably. They believed that psychology &amp;#8212; along with sociology &amp;#8212; led to fewer critical contributions to society and had less expertise than the physical sciences.
How did psychology get this bad reputation?

PsyBlog’s Jeremy Dean (which, by the way, is an aweso...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4734205</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:01:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4734205</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Best of Our Blogs: February 18, 2011</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4495250&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F02%2F18%2Fbest-of-our-blogs-february-18-2011%2F</link>
            <description>This article looks at the big D (as in denial), when it can be good for us and when it can be hazardous to our health. (Source: World of Psychology)</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4495250</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:09:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4495250</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Employee Health: The First “Benefits Package” Blog Carnival</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4253135&amp;cid=t_166598_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Femployee-health-the-first-benefits-package-blog-carnival%2F2010.12.13</link>
            <description>Welcome to The Benefits Package &amp;#8212; the very first employee benefits blog carnival. After healthcare reform, employee benefits move to center stage as one of the most important issues facing Americans.
So what are employers, insurers, and the government really doing to rein in healthcare costs, get their employees to live healthier lives, and improve healthcare quality?
The Benefits Package is the first-ever blog carnival dedicated to these issues. With benefits executives starting to make the leap into the blogosphere, The Benefits Package will highlight the best insights and opinions on this important subject. You will discover new blogs, learn new things, and hopefully think about issues a little differently. I’ll host the first couple of Benefits Packages, and then others will ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4253135</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:00:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4253135</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Workers Compensation: A Model For The Future Of American Healthcare?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4190148&amp;cid=t_166598_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fworkers-compensation-a-model-for-the-future-of-american-healthcare%2F2010.11.22</link>
            <description>There’s a country with an unusual healthcare system. In it, you often spend about as much time with your lawyer as you do your doctor. There are special courts set up to decide what kinds of treatment you are allowed to have. And doctors have to be careful that they don’t say or do the wrong thing, or else they risk being blackballed by insurance companies.
The country:  The United States of America.
You may not realize it, but if you hurt your back at work you end up in a different healthcare system than if you hurt your back at home. Sure, you may end up with similar doctors or hospitals, but your experience of healthcare will be completely different. Here’s why.
If you get hurt at work, you’re covered by the “workers compensation” system. That system has its roots over ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4190148</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:00:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4190148</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Employers Up The Ante For Workers’ Health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4183297&amp;cid=t_166598_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Femployers-up-the-ante-for-workers-health%2F2010.11.19</link>
            <description>More than half of employers are likely to keep offering insurance rather than use state health insurance exchanges when they become available under health care reform in 2014, reported a survey by an insurance broker.
Willis Human Capital Practice released results of its Health Care Reform Survey 2010, which showed 55 percent of employers would keep their health plans in 2014 even if the new state exchanges offer competitive prices. The survey sampled 1,400 employers of varying sizes, industry sectors and geographies whose plans cover more than 9 million employees and dependents (including retirees).
Key findings from the survey include:
• 88 percent believe that group health plan costs will increase as a result of health care reform;
• 76 percent expect administrative compliance co...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4183297</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4183297</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>2010 Voice Awards in Hollywood</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4060649&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2010%2F10%2F12%2F2010-voice-awards-in-hollywood%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;m excited to be attending and reporting from the 5th anniversary of the Voice Awards tomorrow evening in Hollywood. This annual award program sponsored by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) honors screenwriters, producers, and behavioral health advocates raising awareness and understanding of mental and behavioral health problems
The 2010 Voice Awards &amp;#8212; co-hosted by Emmy Award winner Hector Elizondo and Academy Award winner Louis Gossett, Jr. &amp;#8212; will take place on Wednesday, October 13, 2010, at Paramount Studios in Hollywood, Calif. The annual event brings together representatives from the entertainment industry and the behavioral health community for an evening of awareness raising about the contributions people living with m...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4060649</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:02:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4060649</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Captured Situation of Justice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4001715&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F26%2Fthe-captured-situation-of-justice%2F</link>
            <description>Michael S. Kang and Joanna Shepherd recently posted the important paper &amp;#8220;The Partisan Price of Justice: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions&amp;#8221; on  SSRN.  Here&amp;#8217;s the abstract.

* * *
Do campaign contributions affect judicial decisions by elected judges in favor of their contributors’ interests? Although the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. relies on this intuition for its logic, it has been until now largely a proposition that has gone empirically untested. No longer. Using a dataset of every state supreme court case in all fifty states over a four-year period, we find that elected judges are more likely to decide in favor of business interests as the amount of campaign contributions that they have r...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4001715</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 04:01:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4001715</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Situationist Corruption</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3965506&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F14%2Fsituationist-corruption%2F</link>
            <description>Molly J. Walker Wilson recently posted her article, &amp;#8220;Behavioral Decision Theory and Implications for the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Jurisprudence&amp;#8221; (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 679, 2010) on SSRN.  Here&amp;#8217;s the abstract.
* * *
America stands at a moment in history when advances in the understanding of human decision-making are increasing the strategic efficacy of political strategy. As campaign spending for the presidential race reaches hundreds of millions of dollars, the potential for harnessing the power of psychological tactics becomes considerable. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has characterized campaign money as “speech” and has required evidence of corruption or the appearance of corruption in order to uphold restrictions on campaign expenditures. Ulti...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3965506</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:01:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3965506</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Axelrod Is Shocked, Shocked to Find Corporate Money in Elections</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3363639&amp;cid=t_166598_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fejo0EBSIEKk%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazWhite House senior advisor David Axelrod continued the administration&amp;#8217;s campaign against the Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s Citizens United decision on ABC&amp;#8217;s This Week:
But thinking about Teddy Roosevelt, I wonder what he would think about a bill that essentially allows for a corporate takeover of our elections, or a court decision. And that&amp;#8217;s what we&amp;#8217;re dealing with here. Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go into any legislator and say, if you don&amp;#8217;t vote our way on this bill, we&amp;#8217;re going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district. And that is a threat to our democracy.
He was of course echoing and defending President Obama&amp;#8217;s declaration in the State of the Union address:
With all due deference to sepa...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3363639</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:21:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3363639</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Donations And A Departing Congressman</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3228007&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fs0Oh7ogJcQc%2F</link>
            <description>Controversial congressman Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican, announced late last week he won&amp;#8217;t seek re-election after serving since 1992. He cited his wife&amp;#8217;s recent diagnosis with an &amp;#8220;incurable autoimmune disease,&amp;#8221; although as the Center for Responsive Politics points out, he was also accused of numerous ethics transgressions.
At issue is the Frontier Foundation, which he founded in 2003 to distribute scholarships, although none have been given. Meanwhile, the foundation collected lots of donation money, most of it from drugmakers and lobbyists, including Eli Lilly and PhRMA, according to The Indianapolis Star.
Buyer, it so happens, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees health care policy that, of course, affects the pharmaceutical ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3228007</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:50:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3228007</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NAMI: Nearly 75 Percent of Funding from Pharma</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2916167&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F10%2F22%2Fnami-nearly-75-percent-of-funding-from-pharma%2F</link>
            <description>As we noted in April, NAMI gets a significant portion of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. We had to guess at what that percentage was, however, because the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI) refused to detail their pharmaceutical grants and donations in their annual reports and IRS filings.
At the time, I was generous and said that it&amp;#8217;s likely that 30 to 50 percent of NAMI&amp;#8217;s funding came from pharmaceutical companies. I was off. Way off.
The New York Times reported yesterday that nearly 75 percent of NAMI&amp;#8217;s funding comes from pharmaceutical companies &amp;#8212; $23 million over 3 years&amp;#8217; time:

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the det...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2916167</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:07:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2916167</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NAMI: Nearly 75 Percent of Donations from Pharma</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2920247&amp;cid=t_166598_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F10%2F22%2Fnami-nearly-75-percent-of-funding-from-pharma%2F</link>
            <description>As we noted in April, NAMI gets a significant portion of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. We had to guess at what that percentage was, however, because the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI) refused to detail their pharmaceutical grants and donations in their annual reports and IRS filings.
At the time, I was generous and said that it&amp;#8217;s likely that 30 to 50 percent of NAMI&amp;#8217;s funding came from pharmaceutical companies. I was off. Way off.
The New York Times reported yesterday that nearly 75 percent of NAMI&amp;#8217;s donations come from pharmaceutical companies &amp;#8212; $23 million over 3 years&amp;#8217; time:

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the de...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2920247</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:12:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2920247</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Clinical reflections on Army’s approach in interactive suicide prevention video</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1901488&amp;cid=t_166598_85_f&amp;fid=34798&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommitmenttoliving.com%2F2008%2F10%2F22%2Fclinical-reflections-on-armys-approach-in-interactive-suicide-prevention-video%2F</link>
            <description>A colleague pointed me to a Washington Post article describing an interactive suicide prevention video the Army has produced and will make mandatory for all soldiers.   I experimented with the online demo of Beyond the Front, which shows scenes from the life two soldiers and allows the viewer to make choices that either lead toward or away from help and survival.   The demo portion I reviewed focuses on the decision a distressed soldier faces in deciding to talk with the chaplain or not.   I was impressed with the quality of the video and interested by the approach.
I am not expert enough in public awareness and mass media approaches to prevention to comment or speculate about how effective this video might be in preventing suicide in the Army.  But I would like to comment on some i...</description>
            <author>Commitment to Living</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1901488</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:21:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1901488</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Politics &amp; Money: Pharma Still Bets On Obama</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1826211&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F401049151%2F</link>
            <description>The fact that pharma is giving more money to Barack Obama is no longer big news. But Politico tries to get a little more mileage out of the trend with a piece concluding the current election cycle is &amp;#8220;the first in which the drug companies are publicly showing their hand through their political giving.&amp;#8221;
We&amp;#8217;re not so sure that&amp;#8217;s true. But we do agree that, as Politico writes, the donations don&amp;#8217;t amount to &amp;#8220;a full sprint to the left. Rather, it’s almost as though the industry has planted itself on a neutral base - still in the game but on neither side.&amp;#8221; That&amp;#8217;s despite John McCain&amp;#8217;s boasts about taking on the drug industry and his calls for cheap imports.
&amp;#8220;The rift with the industry’s Republican allies is being driven by more than...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1826211</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:53:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1826211</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Resource re: means restriction in practice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1815300&amp;cid=t_166598_85_f&amp;fid=34798&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommitmenttoliving.com%2F2008%2F09%2F22%2Fmeans-restrict-resource%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;ve had a nice response to the brief commentary I posted in conjunction with a link to the NY Times article about means restriction.  In light of that, I thought I&amp;#8217;d post a link to the a site called Means Matter, which is published by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.   The site has summary pages called &amp;#8220;Taking Action&amp;#8221; for families, communities, and clinicians.
The talking action page for clinicians is worth reading for any clinician, and could be especially useful to primary care providers.  I&amp;#8217;m thinking a lot about primary care right now because (a) primary care psychology has beeen a focus of my career and I have a deep respect for the breadth of responsibility primary care providers carry, including in suicide prevention (b) I&amp;#8217;m still ...</description>
            <author>Commitment to Living</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1815300</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:17:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1815300</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Means restriction and impulsivity in fantastic NY Times piece</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1775555&amp;cid=t_166598_85_f&amp;fid=34798&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommitmenttoliving.com%2F2008%2F09%2F08%2Fnyt-means-restriction%2F</link>
            <description>I have mentioned quite a few NY Times articles in this blog because I think they cover suicide really well.   Last month they published a piece in the NY Times Magazine that I keep recommending to people in informal and clinical discussions, so I thought I&amp;#8217;d link to it here.   Many thanks to my colleague Bill Watson for first alerting me to the article.
The Urge To End It, by Scott Anderson, is a stunning piece.  Well-written, and well-researched, it challenges the stereotype that suicide is always well thought out, carefully planned, and the result of a conscious and un-ambivalent decision.   He focuses on the impulsivity and momentary desperation involved in many suicide attempts, and raises awareness about means restriction as a potent intervention.
For clinicians, there are...</description>
            <author>Commitment to Living</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1775555</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:55:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1775555</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Glaxo To Disclose Educational &amp; Charitable Grants</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1723654&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F370942133%2F</link>
            <description>The &amp;#8216;T&amp;#8217; word is all the rage among big pharma execs these days. Now, Glaxo has caught the transparency bug. Beginning in February 2009, the drugmaker says it will &amp;#8220;proactively&amp;#8221; report educational and charitable grants provided to US health-related organizations.
Its report will be updated on a quarterly basis and will include grants provided to various organizations including hospitals, teaching institutions, managed care organizations, professional associations, patient advocacy groups, and continuing medical education companies.
&amp;#8220;By publishing information about our grants, we transparently identify the support we offer for independent and quality education to improve the delivery of health care for patients,&amp;#8221; Chris Viehbacher, who heads Glaxo&amp;#8217;s N...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1723654</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:44:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1723654</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pfizer To Disclose Grants And Charitable Donations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1443169&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F290416803%2F</link>
            <description>Could this be a trend? The drugmaker has posted a list of grants and charitable contributions made in this year&amp;#8217;s first quarter to medical, scientific and patient organizations in the US. The move comes one day after Lilly agreed to support a watered-down version of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and two months after AstraZeneca agreed to post info on its US web site about contributions to state and federal political candidates.
In a statement, Pfizer ceo Jeff Kindler utters the &amp;#8216;T&amp;#8217; word twice. “We want to bring greater transparency to the way we partner with leading medical, scientific and patient organizations,” he says. &amp;#8220;Detailing these grants and charitable contributions is an important part of our ongoing transparency drive.” Our thought: Why not lis...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1443169</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 04:33:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1443169</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Is Still Betting On Barack Obama</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1396423&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F277126509%2F</link>
            <description>An industry that usually favors Republicans voted in favor of Barack Obama during a mock election held this week at the annual DTC National Conference. The Democratic hopeful won a &amp;#8220;primary&amp;#8221; vote against Hillary Clinton by a wide margin of 59 percent to 40 percent. And against John McCain, the Republican nominee, Obama garnered a 53 percent majority.
&amp;#8220;Given the Republican leanings of the drug industry, it is somewhat surprising to see Barack Obama so handily defeat John McCain,&amp;#8221; Bob
Ehrlich, ceo DTC Perspectives, which hosted the conference, says in a statement. &amp;#8220;Of course, that could be an indication that McCain&amp;#8217;s frequent anti-industry comments have made him unpopular with drug company marketers. Or, it could reflect that drug industry marketers do not...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1396423</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:11:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1396423</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Secrets? AstraZeneca Tries To Come Clean</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1300628&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F250759037%2F</link>
            <description>The &amp;#8216;T&amp;#8217; word is a hot-button issue in pharma these days. We mean &amp;#8216;transparency.&amp;#8217; After all, drugmakers are regularly criticized for failing to disclose info about clinical trials, research grants, political contributions and clinical trials. So AstraZeneca is trying to remedy this by expanding its disclosure policy. 
Specifically, the drugmaker plans to post info on its US web site about contributions to state and federal political candidates through its political action committee, including names of recipients and the amounts contributed. Beginning with 2008 contributions, this info will be updated in connection with filings to the Federal Election Commission. Our thought: Why not post contributions for the past few years?
By this fall, AstraZeneca plans to publish...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1300628</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:26:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1300628</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Drug Money: Pharma Bets On Obama, So Far</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1215498&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F230961881%2F</link>
            <description>As the chart indicates, drugmakers have been betting on Barack Obama, who received $154,710 in donations through December, almost entirely from individual employees and family members, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which makes a point of tracking such things. He edged out Hillary Clinton, who raked in $140,544, including $6,000 from PACs, despite her regular promises to &amp;#8216;take on&amp;#8217; drugmakers. Across the aisle, Mitt Romney collected $103,825, reflecting his pro-business stance and high profile in Boston&amp;#8217;s biotech community. Not surprisingly, John McCain received just $39,797, which may seem like to some people, given his support for cheap imports. And Mike Huckabee, well, he got pocket change - $1,610, maybe because he was seen as long shot? (Source: Phar...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1215498</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:37:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1215498</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Big Pharma And Its Presidential Bets</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1137220&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F213162442%2F</link>
            <description>These are the figures as compiled by OpenSecrets. Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784. Right behind was Mitt Romney, with $260,535 (please click on the chart to make it bigger). One caveat: this is as of Oct. 29.
As an aside, it&amp;#8217;s interesting to contrast the contributions with the rhetoric. Last week, Clinton said: “I’ve taken on the drug companies. I’ve taken on the health insurance companies. I’ve taken on the oil companies, and I intend to keep doing it.&amp;#8221; Perhaps, she meant take them on until they contribute still more.
John Edwards was also talking tough. &amp;#8220;I don’t believe you can sit at a table and negotiate with drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies and hope that they will vol...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1137220</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:01:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1137220</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pfizer’s Kindler: ‘Love Me, I’m A Liberal’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=947463&amp;cid=t_166598_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F169095086%2F</link>
            <description>How so? Well, Jeff not only contributes to Democrats, he contributes to Hillary Clinton. He gave $2,300 to the presidential aspirant last April (here&amp;#8217;s the itemized receipt), and sent the same amount to Chris Dodd (who&amp;#8217;s odds of becoming president aren&amp;#8217;t much better than Exubera has of becoming a blockbuster, but that&amp;#8217;s another story).
Normally, this sort of donation isn&amp;#8217;t huge news. But given that pharma is a rather conservative industry - and that Kindler&amp;#8217;s predecessor, Hank McKinnell, was a staunch Republican supporter who pressed Pfizer employees to make political contributions - Kindler&amp;#8217;s choice is a bit surprising. In fact, a quick check shows that, apparently, two-thirds of his donations over the past decade went to Democrats. By contrast, n...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=947463</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:25:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">947463</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Irreverant documentation post</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=947320&amp;cid=t_166598_85_f&amp;fid=34798&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Friskassessment.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F10%2F12%2Firreverant-documentation-post%2F</link>
            <description>I came across this irreverent, but pretty informative post by the Last Psychiatrist about documentation for patients with suicidal thoughts or behavior. He is writing from the perspective of an acute services physician, but much of what he says applies across settings.
Note that the post has ads embedded in it. Besides being annoying, the ads throw off some of the formatting, so you have to scroll down to read the text. (Source: Commitment to Living)</description>
            <author>Commitment to Living</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=947320</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:11:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">947320</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Warning:  Non-family Tx may be hazardous to your (family’s) health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=947321&amp;cid=t_166598_85_f&amp;fid=34798&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Friskassessment.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F10%2F12%2Fwarning-non-family-tx-may-be-hazardous-to-your-family%25e2%2580%2599s-health%2F</link>
            <description>A clever article in the September 2007 issue of the Journal of Family Psychology by Jose Szapocznik and Guillermo Prado suggests that &amp;#8220;psychosocial treatments with vulnerable populations have the potential to produce negative side effects on families.&amp;#8221;
The authors reported unexpected findings from three separate studies that compared the efficacy of a family and non-family treatment.  In brief, they found that family-level outcomes measured after applying non-family treatments didn&amp;#8217;t just remain static (as they had expected), they actually declined.  This relationship is correlational and does not necessarily mean that the treatments in question caused the decline, but the authors argue that the findings are striking enough to raise the question about whether unintended s...</description>
            <author>Commitment to Living</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=947321</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:08:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">947321</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Risk of suicide in young children</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=675329&amp;cid=t_166598_85_f&amp;fid=34798&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Friskassessment.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F06%2F12%2Frisk-of-suicide-in-young-children%2F</link>
            <description>There is a lot of material available about assessing for risk of suicide in adolescents, but much less that focuses on small children.  Some cases are relatively (and I mean relatively) straightforward, like the child who says he is going to kill himself in anger when he doesn&amp;#8217;t get his way. But I have seen a fair number of young children where it is more complicated. Some of them may express the suicidality in anger, but they also take actions like grabbing a kitchen knife or putting shoelace around their necks and pulling it.
Now, in all of the cases I have seen this action has been taken in full view of parents or other adults, which makes it somewhat less concerning (at least in terms of immediate risk for suicide), but nevertheless the child has taken an action which, if done at...</description>
            <author>Commitment to Living</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=675329</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:05:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">675329</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

