Peter B. Bach, MD

@anish_koka Are you referring to reading the NYT?

@peterbachmd Like stepping into a house with deep structural problems. I wouldn’t do it.

Incorrect. NYU Langone is free. Does anyone think it produces more 1º care physicians? Primary care is unattractive because it is pretty hard , requires seeing a high volume of patients , and wages are massively suppressed by NP/PAs/IMGs.

@AnilMakam @anish_koka No idea what point you are trying to make here. That on the margin this wouldn't change speciality distribution? If that is true then why would tying loan to commitment - doesn't breaking that contract just imply paying back the loan?

@peterbachmd @anish_koka I read it and agree with @anish_koka point 30 year careers with wages 2-6x primary care dwarf the 3-6 additional years of specialty training The wealthy can afford it The less wealthy if rational would take out loans

@anish_koka Ok. So your response to the proposal you didn't read should carry how much weight ?

@peterbachmd I’m not paying for the nytimes

@anish_koka Definitely respond without reading the article ...

@peterbachmd ROI for specialty training is high enough that those that can will still get it. This would just saddle those who don’t have silver spoons with loans on top of what they already have for med school/undergrad

@MrPug94 @RxRegA @ScottGottliebMD Thanks for the response. I will take a look.

@peterbachmd @RxRegA Dr. Bach, c’mon. Are you serious? Why don’t you review this Alarmist article that @ScottGottliebMD wrote while he was a PR consultant for Pharma. No $COI disclosures at all, liberty with the facts from NEJM, and the caption in the image was fabricated. bmj.com/content/330/74…

On May 8, The Cancer Letter published a headline story titled: “Vinay Prasad’s CV inaccurately claimed past membership on President’s Cancer Panel.” The President’s Cancer Panel is a longstanding federal advisory body that monitors the National Cancer Program and makes recommendations to the President on cancer policy and progress. It has 3 formal standing members, including the Chair, who are appointed by the President to serve 3-year terms. The President’s Cancer Panel also convenes broader panels of expert participants. Thus you can be either a panel member of the President’s Cancer Panel or a panel member of one of its convened panels. That appears to be the key formal distinction at issue here: Vinay was not 1 of the 3 statutory Presidentially appointed Panel members. He was a panel member, or panelist, of a convened panel. The President’s Cancer Panel convened a 2016–2017 series of workshops on access to high-value cancer drugs. In those workshops, outside experts were invited to participate, present, discuss, and help inform the Panel’s recommendations. Vinay Prasad participated in this series. His work appears in the resulting report, including prominently in Figure 1 and in citations throughout. This was a public process with public participant lists and public materials. His CV says he participated in 2 panels within these 2 years. The issue apparently is that his used “Panel Member” language. I understand why people say that is not the same thing as being 1 of the 3 formal presidentially appointed members. But interestingly, other participants from the same 2016-2017 series described their roles using “Panelist” language on their own CVs: • Aaron Kesselheim, who participated in the Dec. 2016 workshop, listed: “Emerging Opportunities to Streamline Cancer Drug Development / Panelist” followed by “President’s Cancer Panel, Arlington, VA” • Hadiyah-Nicole Green, who participated in the Mar. 2017 workshop, listed: “President’s Cancer Panel on Pricing and Payment Strategies for Cancer Drugs, Panelist” It appears the terminology around these workshops was not perfectly clean in practice. The official materials also move between Panel, workshops, participants, contributors, etc., in ways that can make the structure feel less rigidly compartmentalized than a simple “member/not member” framing suggests. The broader context matters too: Prasad’s CV summary referenced 2 panels and a 2-year timeframe, making it fairly obvious he was not claiming to have served 2 full 3-year terms as a formal appointee. Also, Prasad already had a substantial academic/public profile at that point, so the idea that this was some meaningful hidden attempt to inflate his CV never made much sense to me. Could the wording have been clearer? Perhaps. But taking a 50-page CV, isolating terminology in a context where the terminology itself appears somewhat mixed, and turning it into a headline story that can lead people toward insinuations about dishonesty or moral failing feels like making a mountain out of a molehill. Not every imperfect phrase is a scandal. Not every ambiguity is a character indictment. I haven’t read the full article, so I’m speaking mainly to the headline framing and the broader discourse around it. But based on the public materials I’ve reviewed, this still looks like a situation where the full context matters before people jump to the worst possible reading. Sources: Cancer Letter: cancerletter.com/the-cancer-let… Prasad CV (pg. 17): onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/CV%2… Kesselheim CV (pg. 30): fda.gov/media/138647/d… Green CV (pg. 6): oralee.org/wp-content/upl… Series: prescancerpanel.cancer.gov/reports-meetin… Report: prescancerpanel.cancer.gov/reports-meetin…

@RxRegA It says "member". Are we looking at the same document?

@peterbachmd “Panel member” and “panelist” overlap in ordinary usage. A panelist is, in plain English, a member of a panel. Can we just leave it here for now?

@RxRegA @matthewherper Obviously the correct answer is "no". You sure wrote a lot of words to avoid saying that.

I understand the distinction you’re drawing. I’m not especially interested in turning this into an extended rhetorical exercise over how perfectly your career maps onto his, or how perfectly that committee maps onto this panel. My point remains basically the same: taken in context, including the top summary referencing 2 panels and the 2-year timeframe, it seemed fairly obvious he was not claiming to have served 2 full 3-year terms on the panel. The surrounding information and clarifications were also publicly available. So to me, this still feels much more like making a mountain out of a molehill over shorthand or terminology or whatever you want to call it than uncovering some fabricated-credentials issue. Especially when it gets turned into a headline story that may lead people toward insinuations about character or morality. By that point, Prasad had already built a substantial academic and public profile. These were publicly documented meetings/processes that already listed him as a participant/contributor and cited his work throughout the report. Realistically, why would someone in that position need to secretly inflate involvement in something that was already public and easily checked? I just don’t think this is how you treat people who substantially contribute to these processes. And to circle back somewhat to your analogy: if your own 50-page CV contained 1 word or phrase that, taken fully in context, pointed to something more nuanced than the most literal reading, I’d like to think people would extend a bit more common sense before turning it into a headline story that may imply dishonesty or moral failing. At some point it starts feeling less like substantive engagement and more like people reaching for something personal because they dislike the individual or his ideas. And before this becomes “well why didn’t he just comment,” I can’t speak to that decision and don’t think it changes the broader point. I don’t know his relationship with the outlet or much about the outlet at all, or what goes into that kind of call. And before this gets reduced again to “so is it yes or no,” I’d just ask people to actually read what I wrote here rather than collapsing the entire point into a 1-word framing exercise.

The Cancer Letter reports that Vinay Prasad’s CV inaccurately claimed past membership on the President’s Cancer Panel. Prasad did nor respond to repeated requests for comment, the publication said. cancerletter.com/the-cancer-let…

@RxRegA @matthewherper so is that a yes or a no that I can list myself as a member of the SFC?

@peterbachmd @matthewherper I understand the distinction you’re drawing. I already explained how I interpreted the issue and my view on it hasn’t changed, so I think we probably have to just see this one differently.

@RxRegA @matthewherper Hi Jessica, Thought experiment. I testified for the Senate Finance Committee a few years ago. Is it okay if I enter this on my CV as member of the Senate Finance Committee? finance.senate.gov/hearings/drug-…

The Cancer Letter reports that Vinay Prasad’s CV inaccurately claimed past membership on the President’s Cancer Panel. His CV says: “Previously, I have served on 2 US President’s Cancer Panels…” followed by the dated entry: “2016–2017 — US President’s Cancer Panel — Panel Member.” Taken together, this reads much more like shorthand for participation in 2 meetings during that period than a claim of serving on 2 entirely separate standing President’s Cancer Panels. By this point, Prasad had already earned a substantial academic and public profile. These meetings typically involve prominent, high-profile names. Really, why would he intentionally inflate involvement with publicly documented meetings/processes that already list him as a participant/contributor? I don’t think this is how you treat people who contribute significantly to the panels. Honestly, it feels petty. Especially over wording that, taken together with the surrounding context, reads much more like shorthand for participation in meetings/processes than deliberate CV inflation. Note that his work is cited in the panel’s report starting from the very first figure and referenced throughout. CV (pg. 17): onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/CV%2… President’s Cancer Panel report: prescancerpanel.cancer.gov/reports-meetin…

@KatieS good things worth waiting for???

@peterbachmd The line situation is still insane!

I will never book from LGA again I will never book from LGA again I will never book from LGA again I will never book from LGA again

@ChuckAFlint @SaraEisen @NYCMayor But isn't the only reason this tax could apply to him is because he actually doesn't live in NYC? So if he already left, how can he leave again? With the other arguments, please consider if you believe the reverse. E.g. the tax is fine if someone has fewer/no employees?

@peterbachmd @SaraEisen @NYCMayor Citadel manages more than $60 billion in assets with thousands of NYC employees. Griffin is building a $4.5B, 1,600-foot tower on Park Ave. He gives hundreds of millions to NYC institutions. That’s not someone you want to tax into leaving.

Ken Griffin employs thousands of people in NYC and is planning to build the tallest office tower on Park Ave., investing billions more and creating thousands more jobs. (For that reason, he’s also here in NYC a lot, @NYCMayor) Meantime Miami is welcoming him and his firm, with the massive jobs, investment and tax revenue he’s bringing. Making him feel unwelcome and demonizing him seems risky. Ken left Chicago and moved Citadel hq to Miami a few years ago because of bad policy. (He also sold his penthouse there)

@ChuckAFlint @SaraEisen @NYCMayor Honest question. Isn't the idea that he doesn't actually live in NYC or pay taxes in the city? So hasn't NYC already lost Ken Griffin?

@SaraEisen @NYCMayor Two weeks ago Hochul was trying to recruit New Yorkers back from Palm Beach. Now Mamdani is taxing second homes and demonizing job creators. 370,000+ already left NY & CA. $23.5 billion gone. New York can’t afford to lose Ken Griffin too.

@CrazyFenaker @jayfeely Without a parking space

@jayfeely OK go try to build a large grocery store in Manhattan for $3M and let me know how that works out for you. That's about what a small apartment costs.

You could buy a grocery store for 2 million You could build a grocery store for 3 million And yet somehow, when the socialist government does it, it won’t open until 2029 and cost 30 million. Thank you for the perfect example why socialism is always an object failure

@johnarnold Feels like someone could actually figure this out taking advantage of this natural (or unnatural if you don't believe in taxes) experiment. There should be a foundation that supports objective rigorous research to inform policy.

@peterbachmd It's a good question whether the increase in rates > loss in tax base. I think the hard part is not only what moves away but what never comes in the first place.

High-tax states are playing with fire by raising rates further as the tax base continues shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.

@veitdengler Jonas Salk should be more careful ... oh never mind

Albert Einstein should be more careful when talking about physics.

@omzidar Just wait until you try to get your lecture approved for CME ....

It's ridiculous that I have to sign up to be a supplier of Harvard university to get some train tickets reimbursed. I think I've entered my address and info about 8 times at this point in the "supplier portal" and have had to do it multiple times. the cost of these bureaucratic processes are totally out of control.