Thursday, December 25, 2008


I'd like to discuss the relationship of the pharmaceutical industry and comments made recently by Ray McDaniel, the CEO at Moody's. This introductory sentence may seem disparate but allow me to continue.

For almost 18 years as a medical provider, I have been "privy" to information and recommendations to numerous name brand medications and supporting studies documenting the efficacy of same by various pharmaceutical representatives through the years. A little over a year ago, I finally decided to divorce myself from what I would call a propaganda campaign by pharmaceutical companies and instead would base patient-centered therapy along non-biased decision making. Needless to say, I have dropped off the proverbial "radar" of the reps that frequent our office and I generally feel quite happy with my decision. The reality is that, from my perspective in most cases, cheaper generic medications are equal to the more expensive brand names touted by the pharmaceutical market.

Now, how does this relate to the CEO over at Moody's?

An online comment to a recent letter I wrote regarding the Nixon Doctrine was quite illuminating for me in terms of my desire for election to the US Senate in 2010. A reader recommended that I have a look at comments made by Ray McDaniel, Moody's CEO that was generically entitled "Rating Erosion by Persuasion" and alluded to on the Committee on Oversight and Govenment Reform website chaired by Henry Waxman. One of the comments that Mc Daniel made was “Analysts and MDs [managing directors] are continually ‘pitched’ by bankers, issuers, investors” and sometimes “we ‘drink the kool-aid.’”

As a medical provider and a US Senate candidate in 2010, the above comments represent a continuing pattern as to the influence of lobbyists/special needs groups
onto specific target audiences---not just onto medical providers generally but also to the higher realm of institutions that influence the greater common good of the United States.

Recently, I had read that the latest Rasmussen Report showed that only 9 percent of voters gave Congress a "good or excellent" rating and only 2 per cent thought Congress doing an excellent job. This is "single digits" territory here. And from my perspective, this represents an abysmal failure on the part of both the Senate and Congress to get their collective acts together. And does the Senate and House truly represent the needs of the American population? More importantly, can the needs of American banking and industry merge with the realpolitik of the average American family to produce a winning quid pro quo?

Based upon my experience with the pharmaceutical industry, I can understand how a busy "practitioner" in the finance community could become the proverbial victim to another supposed expert within this field in which information could then sway original decision making processes. In this particular case, I can theoretically understand how the whole mortgage and banking debacle evolved. I, myself, can reflect on similar tactics utilized by pharmaceutical reps peddling their own products through the years.

In either case, the expectations of both consumer groups were directly influenced by special interest needs of specific industries...amd usually for the benefit of the interest groups themselves. I am a strong proponent of both reviewing and implementing a process in which there is true oversight in the analysis and protection of the basic needs of our citizenry within all spheres of potential political influence.

If we as a society can not trust our own government and its intents, then we as a populace will end up losing any chance in both maintaining and assuring our mandated Constitutional rights and expectations of those we elect to represent us.

No comments: