corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 16129

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Kowalczyk L.
Perks policy for doctors challenged
The Boston Globe 2009 Jul 23
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/new_doctors_group_challenges_conflict_of_interest_policy_effects/


Abstract:

Physician organization wants limits rolled back


Full text:

A growing number of hospitals, universities, and states are barring drug companies from buying physicians dinner, hiring them as speakers, and giving them even token gifts.

Now, a new organization of doctors – several from Boston – wants to roll back policies curbing interactions between doctors and drug company representatives, saying restrictive rules ultimately will hurt the patients they’re designed to protect.

The group, called the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators, plans to hold its first conference today at Brigham and Women’s Hospital to promote “productive collaboration’’ between industry and physicians, which they say leads to better medicines and treatments. Dr. Jeffrey Flier, dean of Harvard Medical School, is one of 25 speakers and will give the welcoming remarks to about 200 attendees.

Flier, who is unaffiliated with the organization, will not endorse its views, said David Cameron, spokesman for the medical school, which is revising its conflict-of-interest policy. “He will welcome vigorous debate and analysis on the issue of academic collaborations with industry and encourage individuals with varied perspectives to participate in the discussion,’’ Cameron said in a written statement.

Dr. Thomas Stossel, an oncologist at the Brigham; Dr. Jeffrey Garber, chief of endocrinology at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates; and Dr. Paul Richardson, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, are among the founders of the group. Stossel said they want “to convey that there is a silent majority out there. And to restore some balance to the debate,’’ he said.

The group’s website says its long-term goals include reversing restrictive new conflict-of-interest policies and establishing chapters at universities and within medical specialty societies.

Massachusetts public health officials plan in two years to review the state’s new conflict-of-interest regulations, which went into effect July 1 and include a ban on gifts to doctors from drug and medical device companies, and Stossel said his group “wants to create an outcry against’’ the law. The law also requires drug and device companies to disclose publicly most payments made to doctors for consulting.

Partners HealthCare, which includes the Brigham and Massachusetts General Hospital, passed its own restrictions in April, which go further than the state law, banning all industry-paid gifts and meals and also forbidding doctors from traveling the country as paid members of company “speakers bureaus.’’

The association’s goals, which run contrary to the widespread movement in medicine to create more distance between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, have been widely discussed – and often derided – on healthcare blogs in the past several weeks.

Patient advocacy groups and lawmakers leading the charge for more restrictive policies say Stossel and his colleagues are misguided. Advocates of the restrictions believe drug companies, by giving doctors gifts and paying them to speak and consult, create bias in favor of their products, causing doctors to write more prescriptions for expensive new drugs even if patients don’t really need the medication or if an older, less expensive drug would work just as well.

Dr. Peter Slavin, president of Mass. General, has said that company-funded meals, gifts, and other practices don’t promote a positive image of doctors and increase healthcare costs.

“The rules benefit consumers by removing the conflicts that we know cloud judgment, and let doctors make decisions free from market pressures,’’ said Brian Rosman, research director for Health Care For All, a Boston-based patient advocacy group.

But Stossel and his colleagues said the new rules stifle invention. They believe the impact of small gifts and meals on doctors is negligible compared with the benefit of collaboration.

“I’ve been in medicine 40 years, and medicine is incomparably better than when I started out,’’ Stossel said. “I don’t think anyone can challenge the fact that it’s because of the tools we’ve gotten from industry.’’

Stossel is a former member of Cambridge-based Biogen Idec’s scientific advisory board. He said he now does occasional consulting to companies on conflict-of-interest policies. The conference is funded by attendees’ fees, though participants who work for drug and device companies are charged more, he said.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909