The issue is not independent entities, it is the unwillingness of the gov't to use the powers it has.
For example, Pfizer was found guilty of promoting Bextra off label, a very serious charge from the viewpoint of the FDA and the Justice Department. Punishment includes banning companies from doing business with CMS (who run Medicare and Medicaid).
Pfizer entered into an agreement with the Justice Department/HHS where a shell company was allowed to plead guilty and be banned from doing business with Medicare. That's right, a shell company that doesn't actually sell any drugs.
Who said the issue was independent entities? That's the solution. The issue is conflicted interests having too much influence.
I'd agree the unwillingness of the gov't to use the powers it has is a problem. But that's a separate and equally important issue that others in this thread have flagged, filed under the label 'regulatory capture'.
It's not a situation that requires fire and brimstone and outrage. It should just be approached with dispassionate understanding: we have a defective system that is not designed to withstand attacks by self-interested system 'hackers'.
The solution is to design a system that neutralises short-term, narrow self-interest.
What would the short- to medium-term impact on the poor and elderly be if all Pfizer inventories suddenly weren't available? Are you sure it's worth it?
For example, Pfizer was found guilty of promoting Bextra off label, a very serious charge from the viewpoint of the FDA and the Justice Department. Punishment includes banning companies from doing business with CMS (who run Medicare and Medicaid).
Pfizer entered into an agreement with the Justice Department/HHS where a shell company was allowed to plead guilty and be banned from doing business with Medicare. That's right, a shell company that doesn't actually sell any drugs.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.htm...