Neil S. Goldberg, MD

Is there a dermatologist who doesn’t think tretinoin works for acne or that combination therapy with benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin is not better than benzoyl peroxide alone? Is there a dermatologist who thinks acne surgery is "experimental or investigational?" Is there a dermatologist who thinks that clobetasol propionate can be substituted for pimecrolimus on the face? You would have to think so, because most of the insurance companies are relying on a dermatologist somewhere in their ranks to advise them on formularies and other cost control strategies, and these are their actual recommendations.

How about isotretinoin? How many times must I plead for extensions of isotretinoin therapy with insurance companies who still don’t understand cumulative weight-based dosing? I got a call the other day from a patient because her insurance company would only pay for tetracycline or minocycline, not doxycycline. Who are these guys? Are they the only ones who didn’t hear that tetracycline is no longer available in America? Probably the same advisers who told me to consider using a "generic immunomodulator" before they would consider paying for brand-name Elidel/Protopic.

I understand the argument that prior authorization may be required for expensive medications. What I don’t understand is why we have to get a new authorization each time we escalate dosage for an isotretinoin patient, which makes no sense and wastes everyone’s time. In each and every case, we have to explain this increase to insurance companies as if we were the first physician’s office to ever call about it. How does a dermatologist not know this, and if he doesn’t know this how is he allowed to be a consultant for an insurance company? I want to know that guy’s name. I want to know whose idea it was to require a prior authorization for a 1-week course of prednisone. I refused to call the insurance company, but relented just to have the opportunity to tell the company what I thought of this request.

When an insurance company rejects a request for bare-bones therapy or a simple treatment for acne, the first thing I ask is who is your dermatologist? Who told you this was acceptable? I am still waiting for a reply. I think the late Dr. Bernie Ackerman had it right when he wrote about dubious and dishonest expert dermatologic testimony in the courts. You can sell your professional opinions for a price, but that price should include public disclosure of your identity. We should hold these people’s feet to the fire. Either defend why they think generic benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin and generic tretinoin are not essential first-line therapies, or get out of the way and allow us to prescribe them without wasting 20 minutes on the phone for each patient.

It may be getting worse: A pharmacist told me that this year, insurance companies will stop paying for any form of combination benzoyl peroxide for patients older than 18 years. Ordering online or using specialty pharmacies are temporary fixes and miss the point. It is possible that some of these companies don’t consult with a dermatologist at all. In that case, shouldn’t that physician consultant be held to the same standard as a dermatologist? To consciously hire a consultant who has incomplete knowledge of the specific needs of specialists is dishonest and unethical. That company and the consultant should be exposed.

The entire specialty of dermatology, through our professional organizations, should insist that if dermatologists are going to manage cases of eczema, acne, and other common skin conditions, that a basic list of required medications be available to us with no hassle, that there be limits on the numbers of medications that require prior authorizations, and that there be justifiable common-sense reasons for limiting access to these necessary and useful medications.

It is ridiculous that we must pay nurses to spend hours on hold with insurance companies so our patients can have access to basic generic medications. The dermatologists or other physicians who believe these medications need prior authorizations should have to explain and justify this once and for all, or be accountable for what can only be described as unprofessional and dishonest conduct, detrimental to patients everywhere.

How about topical tretinoin for adult women? Huge numbers of women need and use this valuable medication for acne, but insurance companies are allowed to deny it to females older than 29 years because some of them use it for photoaging, another of its Food and Drug Administration–approved indications. How is that allowed? It is sexist and insulting and I can’t believe this policy is allowed to stand. If I say a patient has acne and needs tretinoin cream, then that should be enough. We should have a formulary of generic medications for the most common conditions that we treat, and every insurance company should be forced to use a minimum formulary list with no restrictions. Expensive medications can have cost controls and should have reasonable limits but the approval process needs to be streamlined.

How do you combat this waste of time? It’s not as if these prior authorizations are aimed at responsible cost containment or better patient care. We can have an honest debate about the place for Yervoy and Zelboraf for metastatic melanoma, but you can’t debate the place for Elidel and Protopic for chronic eczema on the face. If a company wants to exclude commonly used, relatively inexpensive medications, then they should be forced to reveal exactly who is giving them advice on dermatologic formularies. If the advice runs counter to the universally accepted standards for practice within our specialty, then that dermatologist should be compelled to explain his or her reasoning. I suspect that, in many cases, there is no dermatologist, but that is what transparency and accountability are all about. Exposing insurance companies and third-party pharmacy managers that are misleading us and our patients is an important mission for the future.

There is only one thing I am sure about: It is a waste of time for us to fight these battles one patient at a time. It’s time for big fights with big players to fix this problem in a comprehensive manner.

Dr. Goldberg is a dermatologist in private practice in White Plains and Bronxville, N.Y. He has been a member of the Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board since 1995, and he has no financial conflicts to disclose.

Is there a dermatologist who doesn’t think tretinoin works for acne or that combination therapy with benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin is not better than benzoyl peroxide alone? Is there a dermatologist who thinks acne surgery is "experimental or investigational?" Is there a dermatologist who thinks that clobetasol propionate can be substituted for pimecrolimus on the face? You would have to think so, because most of the insurance companies are relying on a dermatologist somewhere in their ranks to advise them on formularies and other cost control strategies, and these are their actual recommendations.

How about isotretinoin? How many times must I plead for extensions of isotretinoin therapy with insurance companies who still don’t understand cumulative weight-based dosing? I got a call the other day from a patient because her insurance company would only pay for tetracycline or minocycline, not doxycycline. Who are these guys? Are they the only ones who didn’t hear that tetracycline is no longer available in America? Probably the same advisers who told me to consider using a "generic immunomodulator" before they would consider paying for brand-name Elidel/Protopic.

I understand the argument that prior authorization may be required for expensive medications. What I don’t understand is why we have to get a new authorization each time we escalate dosage for an isotretinoin patient, which makes no sense and wastes everyone’s time. In each and every case, we have to explain this increase to insurance companies as if we were the first physician’s office to ever call about it. How does a dermatologist not know this, and if he doesn’t know this how is he allowed to be a consultant for an insurance company? I want to know that guy’s name. I want to know whose idea it was to require a prior authorization for a 1-week course of prednisone. I refused to call the insurance company, but relented just to have the opportunity to tell the company what I thought of this request.

When an insurance company rejects a request for bare-bones therapy or a simple treatment for acne, the first thing I ask is who is your dermatologist? Who told you this was acceptable? I am still waiting for a reply. I think the late Dr. Bernie Ackerman had it right when he wrote about dubious and dishonest expert dermatologic testimony in the courts. You can sell your professional opinions for a price, but that price should include public disclosure of your identity. We should hold these people’s feet to the fire. Either defend why they think generic benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin and generic tretinoin are not essential first-line therapies, or get out of the way and allow us to prescribe them without wasting 20 minutes on the phone for each patient.

It may be getting worse: A pharmacist told me that this year, insurance companies will stop paying for any form of combination benzoyl peroxide for patients older than 18 years. Ordering online or using specialty pharmacies are temporary fixes and miss the point. It is possible that some of these companies don’t consult with a dermatologist at all. In that case, shouldn’t that physician consultant be held to the same standard as a dermatologist? To consciously hire a consultant who has incomplete knowledge of the specific needs of specialists is dishonest and unethical. That company and the consultant should be exposed.

The entire specialty of dermatology, through our professional organizations, should insist that if dermatologists are going to manage cases of eczema, acne, and other common skin conditions, that a basic list of required medications be available to us with no hassle, that there be limits on the numbers of medications that require prior authorizations, and that there be justifiable common-sense reasons for limiting access to these necessary and useful medications.

It is ridiculous that we must pay nurses to spend hours on hold with insurance companies so our patients can have access to basic generic medications. The dermatologists or other physicians who believe these medications need prior authorizations should have to explain and justify this once and for all, or be accountable for what can only be described as unprofessional and dishonest conduct, detrimental to patients everywhere.

How about topical tretinoin for adult women? Huge numbers of women need and use this valuable medication for acne, but insurance companies are allowed to deny it to females older than 29 years because some of them use it for photoaging, another of its Food and Drug Administration–approved indications. How is that allowed? It is sexist and insulting and I can’t believe this policy is allowed to stand. If I say a patient has acne and needs tretinoin cream, then that should be enough. We should have a formulary of generic medications for the most common conditions that we treat, and every insurance company should be forced to use a minimum formulary list with no restrictions. Expensive medications can have cost controls and should have reasonable limits but the approval process needs to be streamlined.

How do you combat this waste of time? It’s not as if these prior authorizations are aimed at responsible cost containment or better patient care. We can have an honest debate about the place for Yervoy and Zelboraf for metastatic melanoma, but you can’t debate the place for Elidel and Protopic for chronic eczema on the face. If a company wants to exclude commonly used, relatively inexpensive medications, then they should be forced to reveal exactly who is giving them advice on dermatologic formularies. If the advice runs counter to the universally accepted standards for practice within our specialty, then that dermatologist should be compelled to explain his or her reasoning. I suspect that, in many cases, there is no dermatologist, but that is what transparency and accountability are all about. Exposing insurance companies and third-party pharmacy managers that are misleading us and our patients is an important mission for the future.

There is only one thing I am sure about: It is a waste of time for us to fight these battles one patient at a time. It’s time for big fights with big players to fix this problem in a comprehensive manner.

Dr. Goldberg is a dermatologist in private practice in White Plains and Bronxville, N.Y. He has been a member of the Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board since 1995, and he has no financial conflicts to disclose.

Is there a dermatologist who doesn’t think tretinoin works for acne or that combination therapy with benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin is not better than benzoyl peroxide alone? Is there a dermatologist who thinks acne surgery is "experimental or investigational?" Is there a dermatologist who thinks that clobetasol propionate can be substituted for pimecrolimus on the face? You would have to think so, because most of the insurance companies are relying on a dermatologist somewhere in their ranks to advise them on formularies and other cost control strategies, and these are their actual recommendations.

How about isotretinoin? How many times must I plead for extensions of isotretinoin therapy with insurance companies who still don’t understand cumulative weight-based dosing? I got a call the other day from a patient because her insurance company would only pay for tetracycline or minocycline, not doxycycline. Who are these guys? Are they the only ones who didn’t hear that tetracycline is no longer available in America? Probably the same advisers who told me to consider using a "generic immunomodulator" before they would consider paying for brand-name Elidel/Protopic.

I understand the argument that prior authorization may be required for expensive medications. What I don’t understand is why we have to get a new authorization each time we escalate dosage for an isotretinoin patient, which makes no sense and wastes everyone’s time. In each and every case, we have to explain this increase to insurance companies as if we were the first physician’s office to ever call about it. How does a dermatologist not know this, and if he doesn’t know this how is he allowed to be a consultant for an insurance company? I want to know that guy’s name. I want to know whose idea it was to require a prior authorization for a 1-week course of prednisone. I refused to call the insurance company, but relented just to have the opportunity to tell the company what I thought of this request.

When an insurance company rejects a request for bare-bones therapy or a simple treatment for acne, the first thing I ask is who is your dermatologist? Who told you this was acceptable? I am still waiting for a reply. I think the late Dr. Bernie Ackerman had it right when he wrote about dubious and dishonest expert dermatologic testimony in the courts. You can sell your professional opinions for a price, but that price should include public disclosure of your identity. We should hold these people’s feet to the fire. Either defend why they think generic benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin and generic tretinoin are not essential first-line therapies, or get out of the way and allow us to prescribe them without wasting 20 minutes on the phone for each patient.

It may be getting worse: A pharmacist told me that this year, insurance companies will stop paying for any form of combination benzoyl peroxide for patients older than 18 years. Ordering online or using specialty pharmacies are temporary fixes and miss the point. It is possible that some of these companies don’t consult with a dermatologist at all. In that case, shouldn’t that physician consultant be held to the same standard as a dermatologist? To consciously hire a consultant who has incomplete knowledge of the specific needs of specialists is dishonest and unethical. That company and the consultant should be exposed.

The entire specialty of dermatology, through our professional organizations, should insist that if dermatologists are going to manage cases of eczema, acne, and other common skin conditions, that a basic list of required medications be available to us with no hassle, that there be limits on the numbers of medications that require prior authorizations, and that there be justifiable common-sense reasons for limiting access to these necessary and useful medications.

It is ridiculous that we must pay nurses to spend hours on hold with insurance companies so our patients can have access to basic generic medications. The dermatologists or other physicians who believe these medications need prior authorizations should have to explain and justify this once and for all, or be accountable for what can only be described as unprofessional and dishonest conduct, detrimental to patients everywhere.

How about topical tretinoin for adult women? Huge numbers of women need and use this valuable medication for acne, but insurance companies are allowed to deny it to females older than 29 years because some of them use it for photoaging, another of its Food and Drug Administration–approved indications. How is that allowed? It is sexist and insulting and I can’t believe this policy is allowed to stand. If I say a patient has acne and needs tretinoin cream, then that should be enough. We should have a formulary of generic medications for the most common conditions that we treat, and every insurance company should be forced to use a minimum formulary list with no restrictions. Expensive medications can have cost controls and should have reasonable limits but the approval process needs to be streamlined.

How do you combat this waste of time? It’s not as if these prior authorizations are aimed at responsible cost containment or better patient care. We can have an honest debate about the place for Yervoy and Zelboraf for metastatic melanoma, but you can’t debate the place for Elidel and Protopic for chronic eczema on the face. If a company wants to exclude commonly used, relatively inexpensive medications, then they should be forced to reveal exactly who is giving them advice on dermatologic formularies. If the advice runs counter to the universally accepted standards for practice within our specialty, then that dermatologist should be compelled to explain his or her reasoning. I suspect that, in many cases, there is no dermatologist, but that is what transparency and accountability are all about. Exposing insurance companies and third-party pharmacy managers that are misleading us and our patients is an important mission for the future.

There is only one thing I am sure about: It is a waste of time for us to fight these battles one patient at a time. It’s time for big fights with big players to fix this problem in a comprehensive manner.

Dr. Goldberg is a dermatologist in private practice in White Plains and Bronxville, N.Y. He has been a member of the Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board since 1995, and he has no financial conflicts to disclose.

Members of my staff were after me to clean out a drawer in one of the exam rooms. Sure enough, it was full of out-of-date vacutainers and butterfly needles, even though we stopped drawing blood years ago. But my real surprise was the Heine Delta 10 "Dermatoskop." It had to be 12 years old, and it was still in the original box. It was unbelievably never opened and never used. I never even put the batteries in, even though it cost more than $500.00. I found this fascinating because a few years later, I bought my first 3Gen dermatoscope, the DL100. Unlike the Heine, it fits neatly in the palm of my hand, and now it’s like an extra appendage. I use it constantly, dozens of times every day. I don’t just like it, I love it.

If I compare the 5 years before I used a dermatoscope to the last 5 years with the dermatoscope, I have diagnosed twice as many malignant melanomas per year, dramatically increased the rate of malignant melanomas per 1,000 patients and per 1,000 biopsies, and even the ratio of malignant melanoma to basal cell carcinomas. The increases are almost all because of improved identification of thin and in-situ lesions.

I have taken the courses and attended lectures on the use of dermatoscopy. I know I’m no expert, but it has revolutionized the way I look at the skin. I never miss pigmented basal cell carcinomas anymore. The tiny sliver of typical basal cell carcinoma is only visible with a dermatoscope. Those really dark angiomas, no problem; not to mention nail folds, scabies burrows, and scarring alopecia. Finally, pigmented lesions that look symmetric and uniform to the naked eye can look strikingly abnormal with a dermatoscope.

I have an even more personal connection with my 3Gen dermatoscope. The president of 3Gen is John Bottjer Jr. I have known him for more than 20 years, dating back to when he was designing thermal cautery devices for Geiger and electrocautery devices for Birtcher. We met because John’s parents were both patients of mine. In a strange twist, I have used my 3Gen dermatoscope to diagnose melanomas in both of John’s parents over the past 2 years. You’d think I’d get my dermatoscopes for free, but I always buy them at the AAD meeting and get the special meeting price.

At a recent meeting, I upgraded to a new dermatoscope, the 3Gen DermLite II Pro HR. It’s brighter, bigger, and clearer than its predecessors, but it still fits neatly in my palm. Working without a dermatoscope is like working in the dark. Everyone should use one, and use it often.

So why didn’t I ever use the very expensive Heine dermatoscope? As I told my staff when we found the box, it’s all about form and function. Make something that works well, is easy to use, and looks cool, everyone will use it. Make it unwieldy, cumbersome, and just plain unappealing, and it stays in the box.

That said, I’m hoping to sell the Heine "dermatoskop," so call me if you want one, mint condition, original box!

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is in private practice in Bronxville, N.Y. He is a member of the Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board.

Members of my staff were after me to clean out a drawer in one of the exam rooms. Sure enough, it was full of out-of-date vacutainers and butterfly needles, even though we stopped drawing blood years ago. But my real surprise was the Heine Delta 10 "Dermatoskop." It had to be 12 years old, and it was still in the original box. It was unbelievably never opened and never used. I never even put the batteries in, even though it cost more than $500.00. I found this fascinating because a few years later, I bought my first 3Gen dermatoscope, the DL100. Unlike the Heine, it fits neatly in the palm of my hand, and now it’s like an extra appendage. I use it constantly, dozens of times every day. I don’t just like it, I love it.

If I compare the 5 years before I used a dermatoscope to the last 5 years with the dermatoscope, I have diagnosed twice as many malignant melanomas per year, dramatically increased the rate of malignant melanomas per 1,000 patients and per 1,000 biopsies, and even the ratio of malignant melanoma to basal cell carcinomas. The increases are almost all because of improved identification of thin and in-situ lesions.

I have taken the courses and attended lectures on the use of dermatoscopy. I know I’m no expert, but it has revolutionized the way I look at the skin. I never miss pigmented basal cell carcinomas anymore. The tiny sliver of typical basal cell carcinoma is only visible with a dermatoscope. Those really dark angiomas, no problem; not to mention nail folds, scabies burrows, and scarring alopecia. Finally, pigmented lesions that look symmetric and uniform to the naked eye can look strikingly abnormal with a dermatoscope.

I have an even more personal connection with my 3Gen dermatoscope. The president of 3Gen is John Bottjer Jr. I have known him for more than 20 years, dating back to when he was designing thermal cautery devices for Geiger and electrocautery devices for Birtcher. We met because John’s parents were both patients of mine. In a strange twist, I have used my 3Gen dermatoscope to diagnose melanomas in both of John’s parents over the past 2 years. You’d think I’d get my dermatoscopes for free, but I always buy them at the AAD meeting and get the special meeting price.

At a recent meeting, I upgraded to a new dermatoscope, the 3Gen DermLite II Pro HR. It’s brighter, bigger, and clearer than its predecessors, but it still fits neatly in my palm. Working without a dermatoscope is like working in the dark. Everyone should use one, and use it often.

So why didn’t I ever use the very expensive Heine dermatoscope? As I told my staff when we found the box, it’s all about form and function. Make something that works well, is easy to use, and looks cool, everyone will use it. Make it unwieldy, cumbersome, and just plain unappealing, and it stays in the box.

That said, I’m hoping to sell the Heine "dermatoskop," so call me if you want one, mint condition, original box!

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is in private practice in Bronxville, N.Y. He is a member of the Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board.

Members of my staff were after me to clean out a drawer in one of the exam rooms. Sure enough, it was full of out-of-date vacutainers and butterfly needles, even though we stopped drawing blood years ago. But my real surprise was the Heine Delta 10 "Dermatoskop." It had to be 12 years old, and it was still in the original box. It was unbelievably never opened and never used. I never even put the batteries in, even though it cost more than $500.00. I found this fascinating because a few years later, I bought my first 3Gen dermatoscope, the DL100. Unlike the Heine, it fits neatly in the palm of my hand, and now it’s like an extra appendage. I use it constantly, dozens of times every day. I don’t just like it, I love it.

If I compare the 5 years before I used a dermatoscope to the last 5 years with the dermatoscope, I have diagnosed twice as many malignant melanomas per year, dramatically increased the rate of malignant melanomas per 1,000 patients and per 1,000 biopsies, and even the ratio of malignant melanoma to basal cell carcinomas. The increases are almost all because of improved identification of thin and in-situ lesions.

I have taken the courses and attended lectures on the use of dermatoscopy. I know I’m no expert, but it has revolutionized the way I look at the skin. I never miss pigmented basal cell carcinomas anymore. The tiny sliver of typical basal cell carcinoma is only visible with a dermatoscope. Those really dark angiomas, no problem; not to mention nail folds, scabies burrows, and scarring alopecia. Finally, pigmented lesions that look symmetric and uniform to the naked eye can look strikingly abnormal with a dermatoscope.

I have an even more personal connection with my 3Gen dermatoscope. The president of 3Gen is John Bottjer Jr. I have known him for more than 20 years, dating back to when he was designing thermal cautery devices for Geiger and electrocautery devices for Birtcher. We met because John’s parents were both patients of mine. In a strange twist, I have used my 3Gen dermatoscope to diagnose melanomas in both of John’s parents over the past 2 years. You’d think I’d get my dermatoscopes for free, but I always buy them at the AAD meeting and get the special meeting price.

At a recent meeting, I upgraded to a new dermatoscope, the 3Gen DermLite II Pro HR. It’s brighter, bigger, and clearer than its predecessors, but it still fits neatly in my palm. Working without a dermatoscope is like working in the dark. Everyone should use one, and use it often.

So why didn’t I ever use the very expensive Heine dermatoscope? As I told my staff when we found the box, it’s all about form and function. Make something that works well, is easy to use, and looks cool, everyone will use it. Make it unwieldy, cumbersome, and just plain unappealing, and it stays in the box.

That said, I’m hoping to sell the Heine "dermatoskop," so call me if you want one, mint condition, original box!

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is in private practice in Bronxville, N.Y. He is a member of the Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that's on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can't stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that's on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can't stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that's on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can't stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.

I used to think the Internet was the worst way patients could get medical information, but I was mistaken. Even though half of the medical information on the Internet is probably inaccurate, the absolute worst way for anyone to get their information is from commercials for lawyers on television.

In an effort to squeeze money out of a corrupt and broken malpractice court system, lawyers are destroying health care one medication at a time.

Every day, before I even get a chance to introduce myself to new acne patients, parents make a point of telling me that they don’t want that "Accutane drug that’s on TV that causes colitis and makes kids commit suicide." The commercials seem to be effective. Apparently, people do believe everything they see on TV.

"Accutane is a very dangerous drug," claims the spokesperson for a video advertisement on www.gregjonesattorney-accutane.com. I beg to differ.

My favorite tidbit of deliberate misinformation: "After investigation by the FDA, Accutane was recalled by the manufacturer in 2009," according to another TV commercial for a law firm that you can reach at (800) Bad Drug.

Isotretinoin (Accutane) is the newest target for lawyers looking for an easy mark. The list of other undeserving targets is long.

Studies have refuted all claims in the commercials about the dangers of isotretinoin. The evidence used is often based on anecdotal single cases and rumor, not scientific evidence. Among the millions of patients who have taken the drug since 1983, I bet they have had every disease known to medicine. Blaming isotretinoin for all of these problems is like saying the hole-in-one my patient made during a high school golf tournament while on isotretinoin was due to the drug.

Rare side effects may not appear until millions of patients take a drug after approval. If an unpredictable, unforeseen side effect presents itself, and a company does nothing dishonest to hide or obfuscate the truth, should the company be liable for billions in damages?

Most patients are unaware that the FDA monitors every claim drug manufacturers make about their drugs. Claims that have not been preapproved by the FDA, even if true, are met with fines and penalties. If a drug rep leaves a reprint of an already-published article, they can’t highlight it, let alone leave a pen.

Why does the FDA get to micromanage drug companies but can’t stop lawyers from lying about drugs and their side effects? Why is there no equivalence?

"Tort reform" and "defensive medicine" are meaningless phrases to most Americans. It is not the total cost of lawsuit awards and malpractice premiums that makes medical care expensive. It is wasting half our time with patients on documentation and useless tests and procedures to keep the lawyers away. Congress passed an almost 2,000-page health care plan but didn’t spend a paragraph on the abuse lawyers foist upon us.

What is the cost of this? It makes good drugs less available, it makes new drugs less common, and it makes everything more expensive. If we want to do better, we have to punish lawyers who embellish and flat out lie to garner business. We have to punish lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits. We have to get rid of a tort system that punishes the doctors who take care of the most complicated and sick patients in favor of a non-tort system that seeks to help injured patients and identify bad doctors.

If the legal profession refuses to police its own, and if inaccurate and fatuous claims are allowed to be spread over the airwaves, then the government should start to use its muscle to help the medical profession.

Dr. Neil S. Goldberg is a member of the editorial advisory board of Skin & Allergy News and practices dermatology in Bronxville, N.Y. Dr. Goldberg’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. This column, "Adviser’s Viewpoint," appears regularly in Skin & Allergy News, a publication of Elsevier.