<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FDA Tapped Pharma Consultant For DTC Web Site</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/</link>
	<description>News, Comment and Conversation</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: GMP guide for pharmaceuticals</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-389336</link>
		<dc:creator>GMP guide for pharmaceuticals</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:13:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-389336</guid>
		<description>This is a good step by FDA as this will realy take a controll over ADS which are not in intrests of public</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a good step by FDA as this will realy take a controll over ADS which are not in intrests of public</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justice in MI</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-373544</link>
		<dc:creator>Justice in MI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-373544</guid>
		<description>Rereading the article, I am intrigued by the piece about consumers reporting suspected ad violations to DDMAC.

Over the past few years, I have reported a couple of very serious violations to DDMAC.  I never heard anything from them, even after attempts at follow-up contact.  Nor did the promotional tactics in question change.

So I am beginning to feel some regret.  I might very well owe an apology to pigs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rereading the article, I am intrigued by the piece about consumers reporting suspected ad violations to DDMAC.</p>
<p>Over the past few years, I have reported a couple of very serious violations to DDMAC.  I never heard anything from them, even after attempts at follow-up contact.  Nor did the promotional tactics in question change.</p>
<p>So I am beginning to feel some regret.  I might very well owe an apology to pigs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joana Ramos</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-373459</link>
		<dc:creator>Joana Ramos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-373459</guid>
		<description>Comments on 2 different themes in this article:

To learn about evaluation and deconstruction of genuine pharma ads, everyone is welcome to visit Health Skepticism's Ad Watch, at: www.healthyskepticism.org

RE:
"A loophole in Georgia law allows non-profits to incorporate in the state without registering with the IRS, so financial records for EthicAd are not publicly available..."

While I couldn't agree  more that nonprofit  transparency &#38; accountability are of the utmost importance, just the fact that a nonprofit is not registered with the IRS does not necessarily mean that it's operations are  unethical , plus the state incorporation process for nonprofit organizations and the federal process for obtaining IRS status as a tax-exempt charitable organization are two completely separate matters.

State-level issues:
 Each state regulates (or not) charities operating within its borders, and is free to set its own  rules; oversight varies greatly. While I am not familiar with GA laws, the rules in my home state of WA are an example. Nonprofits can incorporate under WA law via the  Corporations Division of the Secretary of State; they will then need to file a basic annual report with financials. In WA, the public can view report basics online, and purchase each report for $5.  WA requires all charities soliciting donations from the public to obtain a  Charitable Solicitation License. But if a nonprofit  is all-volunteer run, has annual revenues of less than $10,000, and does not use commercial fundraisers, it can be registered as a charity and receive an official exemption from needing a CSL, and still do its own fundraising. However, the budget of the  WA AG's Charities Division has been drastically reduced for over 10 years now, so it's oversight capacity is quite limited. This is true in many other states as well.

Federal-level issues 
Charities whose revenues are under $25,000 per year are not required to obtain federal 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, or to seek classification under  any of the 501(c) categories. Until this year,such small charities were also not required to file any reports with the IRS. In addition, it might not be  possible to to view the Form 990 ( the annual financial report  required by the IRS form tax-exempt organizations; it is not a tax return b/c these groups don't pay taxes) of new charities who do have 501(c)3 status, simply due to to IRS processing time. Nonprofits that do file a Form 990s must make them available to the public, and the forms  can viewed on Guidestar, at www.guidestar.org.

Starting in 2008-- for FY 2007--almost all  independent charities, no matter what their size, revenues, and regardless whether or not  they hold 501(c)3 status, must file a brief annual report with the IRS called 990-N or e-postcard. This is supposed to be the start of creating more  oversight. Also, Form 990 has now been greatly revised, so that  it will include much more programmatic and governance data. These changes came about due to ethical concerns, including the creation of 501(c)3 groups simply to serve as tax shelters, not for the charitable purposes intended by the law. 

Also, the IRS has not been free from blame in the situation. The field of nonprofit management is so large &#38; complex, I can't get into anything more here. There are many excellent resources out there, on the web and in many communities.

Joana</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comments on 2 different themes in this article:</p>
<p>To learn about evaluation and deconstruction of genuine pharma ads, everyone is welcome to visit Health Skepticism&#8217;s Ad Watch, at: <a href="http://www.healthyskepticism.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.healthyskepticism.org</a></p>
<p>RE:<br />
&#8220;A loophole in Georgia law allows non-profits to incorporate in the state without registering with the IRS, so financial records for EthicAd are not publicly available&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>While I couldn&#8217;t agree  more that nonprofit  transparency &amp; accountability are of the utmost importance, just the fact that a nonprofit is not registered with the IRS does not necessarily mean that it&#8217;s operations are  unethical , plus the state incorporation process for nonprofit organizations and the federal process for obtaining IRS status as a tax-exempt charitable organization are two completely separate matters.</p>
<p>State-level issues:<br />
 Each state regulates (or not) charities operating within its borders, and is free to set its own  rules; oversight varies greatly. While I am not familiar with GA laws, the rules in my home state of WA are an example. Nonprofits can incorporate under WA law via the  Corporations Division of the Secretary of State; they will then need to file a basic annual report with financials. In WA, the public can view report basics online, and purchase each report for $5.  WA requires all charities soliciting donations from the public to obtain a  Charitable Solicitation License. But if a nonprofit  is all-volunteer run, has annual revenues of less than $10,000, and does not use commercial fundraisers, it can be registered as a charity and receive an official exemption from needing a CSL, and still do its own fundraising. However, the budget of the  WA AG&#8217;s Charities Division has been drastically reduced for over 10 years now, so it&#8217;s oversight capacity is quite limited. This is true in many other states as well.</p>
<p>Federal-level issues<br />
Charities whose revenues are under $25,000 per year are not required to obtain federal 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, or to seek classification under  any of the 501(c) categories. Until this year,such small charities were also not required to file any reports with the IRS. In addition, it might not be  possible to to view the Form 990 ( the annual financial report  required by the IRS form tax-exempt organizations; it is not a tax return b/c these groups don&#8217;t pay taxes) of new charities who do have 501(c)3 status, simply due to to IRS processing time. Nonprofits that do file a Form 990s must make them available to the public, and the forms  can viewed on Guidestar, at <a href="http://www.guidestar.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.guidestar.org</a>.</p>
<p>Starting in 2008&#8211; for FY 2007&#8211;almost all  independent charities, no matter what their size, revenues, and regardless whether or not  they hold 501(c)3 status, must file a brief annual report with the IRS called 990-N or e-postcard. This is supposed to be the start of creating more  oversight. Also, Form 990 has now been greatly revised, so that  it will include much more programmatic and governance data. These changes came about due to ethical concerns, including the creation of 501(c)3 groups simply to serve as tax shelters, not for the charitable purposes intended by the law. </p>
<p>Also, the IRS has not been free from blame in the situation. The field of nonprofit management is so large &amp; complex, I can&#8217;t get into anything more here. There are many excellent resources out there, on the web and in many communities.</p>
<p>Joana</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-373443</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-373443</guid>
		<description>JiM-
You would be very surprised about the percentage of physicians who 'fall' for this as well (absolute vs relative risk).  This marketing technique is useful for persuading physicians as well as consumers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JiM-<br />
You would be very surprised about the percentage of physicians who &#8216;fall&#8217; for this as well (absolute vs relative risk).  This marketing technique is useful for persuading physicians as well as consumers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justice in Michigan</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-373432</link>
		<dc:creator>Justice in Michigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-373432</guid>
		<description>This could be useful or, to use a currently popular metaphor, lipstick on a pig.

We will see what content shows up.  for example, will the difference between absolute and relative risk or benefit be clearly explained?  Will it made clear that advertising is advertising (for anyone who doesn't quite understand)?  And much more.

A useful site, in my view, would be one that helps consumers "translate" ads into what is genuine information and what is hype.  But is there any chance that this site would do that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This could be useful or, to use a currently popular metaphor, lipstick on a pig.</p>
<p>We will see what content shows up.  for example, will the difference between absolute and relative risk or benefit be clearly explained?  Will it made clear that advertising is advertising (for anyone who doesn&#8217;t quite understand)?  And much more.</p>
<p>A useful site, in my view, would be one that helps consumers &#8220;translate&#8221; ads into what is genuine information and what is hype.  But is there any chance that this site would do that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Van S</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-373428</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Van S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-373428</guid>
		<description>Psychiatry;.. Now why doesnt this surprise me!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Psychiatry;.. Now why doesnt this surprise me!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Parker</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/fda-tapped-pharma-consultant-for-dtc-web-site/#comment-373426</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15530#comment-373426</guid>
		<description>FDA laws are creating a lot of awareness amongst the consumers and the best part is that some big pharmacy names are with them to save some life savings drugs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FDA laws are creating a lot of awareness amongst the consumers and the best part is that some big pharmacy names are with them to save some life savings drugs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.158 seconds -->

