Some Programming Models For Administrating Discretionary Profit Sharing Plans

Monahan, James P.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6288.1976.tb00936.x

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pharmaceutical companies will seize the opportunity provided by MOPS to provide easy ways for clinicians to fulfil MOPS requirements. As a leaked Pharmaceutical Marketing manual 33 has indicated, pharmaceutical companies cultivate and manipulate medical “opinion leaders”. “One of the key ways opinion leaders wield influence is through ‘medical education’ commonly provided to doctors in bite‐size packages before and after dinner and often supported by drug company money.”…”

Section: Pharmaceutical Companies Take Over Cmementioning

confidence: 99%

Why we should Reject Mandatory MOPS

Morstyn

2001

Australas Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To critically review General Council’s decision designating participation in the MOPS program as mandatory for retention of Fellowship from 1 January 2003. Conclusions: Mandatory CME is increasingly being used overseas to pave the way for Managed Care. The RANZCP MOPS program, in both its compulsory audit and structured improvement components, explicitly and implicitly encourages Managed Care benchmarks, objectives and values. Managed Care inevitably leads to damage to the patient‐therapist relationship and demoralisation of doctors. Mandatory MOPS is unproven, overly expensive, bureaucratic, unfair, intrusive and educationally counterproductive. It will give excessive control to the College over psychiatrists’ practices and will lead to a number of legal problems. The decision of General Council should be reversed, the mandatory audit components of MOPS dropped and a more flexible, inexpensive and truly educationally based MOPS program developed.

show abstract

Section: Pharmaceutical Companies Take Over Cmementioning

confidence: 99%

Why we should Reject Mandatory MOPS

Morstyn

2001

Australas Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With some minor reservations noted below, we strongly support Welam's work as an important computational supplement to our original paper. We have indepenently been pursuing answers to similar operational questions and welcome this opportunity to offer some additional material on this aspect of discretionary profit sharing plans [2].…”

Section: Input Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply

Monahan¹,

Monahan

1976

The Journal of Finance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some Programming Models For Administrating Discretionary Profit Sharing Plans

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Why we should Reject Mandatory MOPS

Why we should Reject Mandatory MOPS

Reply

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About