"Website is under heavy load" so can't look at specifics. But judging by another NYT article[1], it sounds like there isn't as much cause for suspicion as I would have originally thought.<p>This article singles out the Chief of Cardiology at Newark Beth Israel, citing he received $270,000. It's a lot, but considering how well compensated he likely is already I'd hardly consider him bought. And he's being paid for an undefined number of speaking/consulting engagements which may make that number even less noteworthy.<p>For the most part, this seems like a great initiative for adding transparency but ultimately highlights a non-issue (assuming further analysis doesn't change the story).<p>[1] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/upshot/what-were-learning-about-drug-company-payments-to-doctors.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/upshot/what-were-learning-...</a>
Light shed on this phenomenon is certainly good.<p>Yet it almost seems unfair to only show pharmaceuticals ties. Drug company corruption of doctors is on the "retail" level of individually giving favors. A full picture would involve retail and wholesale ties between doctors, drug makers, medical device makers, hospitals, insurance companies, regulators, professional associations and so-on.<p>And even such a picture would only be a start to keeping regulation from being a division of spoils rather than real cost cutting.
If anyone is interested in this stuff, consider pickingthe book Bad Pharama By Goldacre<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/dp/0865478007" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/...</a><p>He takes an in depth look at the current problems data with the phar. industry