Th• nonproG1 ProPubllc. produ«• lnv<>ligalJv, journ~li m In th• public int

roy•llle,, m,als. ond <>lh

..,,,..i,d 1ha1d ocoon who grom ontr-yp mcrib<, drug>d iff

f!-ndyth an those who don1t. 1"hcm oR moll"}' doctorsr C"criYc.t he mon:b nmd-na.mc m.tdica.tion1s heyt t:ndt o prC$Cnb,1e'.1 )rcxumplcln. tcmist.sw ho rcctiVl!dn o payments h•d • br•nd-name pr..crlb ng ra1eofahout 20 porcen1,w hlle the rite W35 ,bout 30 pw:enl for th°"' receiving more than SS.000 from the dtuj! lnd"'lfY• E,·en doctors who only got fttc ts1<•lp rcscrlbrdm ore!b· nnd•namt'd Ng: on il\'~ragt.

<•JW hyI s 1W. l1uaUonp robltmatlc roin •• ethicalp

(b) Rese;irch:l nV

Findo u1h ow th-rp harma.ct'utkainl du~tryn :!-Spon1d0s criticismo fthi formo f 1Tu11UtinHg.o w do doctors r«pond? Wh,i does the FTC 5.l)' about this'

(c) Whnt might be• good public policy going forward!