Stanford U. is starting a program to advocate against the influence of drug and medical device cies. on physicians, a practice that spins some US$1 billion per year. The problem is that the program is being partly funded by Pfizer. Stanford claims that Pfizer’s support was 100% voluntary and that there are no strings attached. How far can we push the boundaries on conflicts of interest? And if it appears conflicted, doesn’t it defeat the purpose from the get-go?
Motivated by the recent LBO of IMS Health by TPG (the private equity group) and Canada Pension Plan, here’s an excerpt from our Q3 2009 report in which we discussed the company. We had been looking at it at least since 2007, when we started to look at the healthcare industry globally. Right after our text we link to other interesting articles on the deal.
The merger between Odontoprev and Bradesco Dental highlights the advantage of looking at industries and companies globally. The game is NOT about being the best “brazilian” investor you can be. It’s about being the best investor you can be. There’s a world of difference between the two propositions (pun intended).