Thanks to CP&P for pointing to this, reported on Health Care Renewal:
The main pediatrics teaching hospital for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School is the Bristol-Myers Squibb Children's Hospital, named, of course, for Bristol-Myers Squibb, the large pharmaceutical company.. The hospital was apparently well supported by grants from the the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation.
The hospital opened in 2001. As best as I can tell from a Lexis-Nexis search, there was not the slightest controversy about naming a hospital for a large pharmaceutical company. Obviously, doctors and faculty at the hospital may choose to use Bristol Myers Squibb products, and to perform research, consult, or give talks for the company. Yet there was no public discussion about whether having the hospital named for the drug company produced even the appearance of an institutional conflict of interest.
How in heaven's name can there not be even a thought given about the conflicts involved in naming hospitals and similar institutions (the same post mentions a furor aroused when the "University of Iowa proposed naming their new school of public health after a local for-profit insurance company in exchange for a substantial gift from the company's associated foundation" ). When a donor has an interest in products used by an institution or has a vested financial interest in their billing practices, then how can there not be conflict? How can the institution not be influenced in their decision making, even if unconsciously, to curry continuing favor from the "benefactor"?
Anyone doubting that health care is increasingly owned by drug companies and insurance companies borders on delusional, I believe.