---and their position on generic approval for Lovenox.
Happy Hospitalist is not happy.
DB at Medrants says that while he's no expert on LMWH this doesn't pass the smell test.
I'm not opposed to the support from Pharma companies. Commercial support enhances the organization's ability to deliver educational resources. What does concern me is the lack of transparency about their position on the Lovenox approval. Maybe there's a good reason. The members need to be given the rationale. Something more than vague claims about patient safety. How about some scientific arguments based on pharmacologic principles and evidence?
This isn't the only thing that's miffed me about SHM. They make biased and non-evidence based claims about the value of the hospitalist model; their credulity regarding the IOM, patient safety and performance measures is naïve; they could be doing a better job of promoting hospitalist career satisfaction; and the plenary sessions at SHM 2010 were like a rally for Obamacare.
What's going on here? It has a lot to do with the fact that the Society of Hospital Medicine is in he unique position of being the only professional society representing the fastest growing and now one of the largest specialties in medicine. Bias and professional arrogance are bound to creep in. It's only natural. It's how the world turns. Hardly any other specialty of comparable size is represented by only one organization. This is an anomaly. We're big enough for a second one. Both could thrive and help us really mature as a specialty. It would provide checks and balances. It would be a win-win. It's time.