The University of Illinois lent its branding and some of its doctors to an ad that ran in the New York Times Magazine, proclaiming "We believe in da Vinci surgery because our patients benefit." Small print at the bottom of the page stated that the copyright for the ad belonged to Intuitive Surgical and that some of the physicians pictured had received payments from the company.
"The University has allowed its reputation to be used in a nationally distributed advertisement produced and owned by a private party, in benefit to that party’s commercial objectives," former Beth Israel Deaconess hospital administrator Paul Levy wrote in a blog post entitled ‘Time to fire somebody.’
Levy cited the hospital’s own code of conduct, saying that it’s participation in the advertisement "is not consistent with ‘exercising custodial responsibility for University property and resources.’"
"So, who should be fired for these violations?" Levy concluded. "Simple: I would choose the highest-rank administrator and clinician who gave permission for this advertisement to be published."
Shrinking a pathology lab to the size of a credit card
University of Washington researchers are building a credit-card sized diagnostic machine that would replicate the process of diagnosing pancreatic cancer without the need for biopsy samples to be sent away to a full pathology lab.
House and Senate panels unveil true doc fix
High-ranking members of influential committees in the House and Senate revealed a bipartisan bill that would replace the long-standing and annually delayed Medicare reimbursement cuts for doctors, replacing the "sustainable growth rate" formula with one that would increase reimbursement rates by 0.5% per year for 5 years.
Bumper biotech IPO crop not all high-yield
Biotech companies have been raking in investor dollars and announcing initial public offerings in droves, but most are posting negative returns from their IPOs, according to Renaissance Capital.
Rule-making delays at the FDA are hard to spot
Brigham and Women’s Hospital researchers warn that a lack of transparency at the FDA makes delays in rule-making hard to uncover, but a recent analysis suggests that it takes more than 7 years on average for a rule to make it to the final stages.