Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17281

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: Journal Article

Lo B
Serving Two Masters — Conflicts of Interest in Academic Medicine
NEJM 2010 Feb 25; 362:(8):669-671
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/8/669

Abstract:

In January 2010, Boston-based Partners HealthCare, which includes some of the nation’s leading teaching hospitals, began sharply limiting the amount of compensation institutional officials may receive for serving on boards of directors of biomedical companies or companies that are likely to do business with Partners.1 Declaring that “compensation [for board service] should be capped at a level befitting an academic role,“1 Partners limited payments to $5,000 per day for the time spent at board meetings and prohibited equity compensation. Partners officials may donate additional compensation to a charitable organization that is not affiliated with Partners. The Partners conflict-of-interest committee will review all such arrangements. The press reported that several Partners officials have received more than $200,000 a year as directors of companies that sell pharmaceutical or medical products – a standard level of compensation for directors.2 The chair of the committee that recommended the new policies reportedly cited 2009 policy changes that prohibit faculty members from serving on speakers’ bureaus of drug companies, suggesting that it would seem unfair to restrict the income of junior faculty in this way while refraining from limiting the outside income of senior officials serving on boards.2

Relationships between academia and industry have both benefits and risks. Close collaboration between academia and industry has facilitated the development of many new drugs.3 This is an area in which key interests may be aligned: the public seeks effective new therapies, academia wishes to translate basic discoveries into treatments, and industry wishes to develop new products. As the Partners policy notes, both academia and industry may benefit when academic leaders serve on company boards. Companies may benefit from the wisdom of senior academic physicians and learn about emerging trends in basic research and health care. Academic leaders may learn innovative approaches to organizing scientific research teams or running large, complex organizations, and their networking with other board members may enhance fund-raising.

However, the mission of academic health centers (AHCs) may diverge from that of for-profit medical companies in important ways (see table). Whereas AHCs are driven largely by the goals of deepening our understanding of health and disease and providing high-quality care, companies need to develop profitable new products; this means, for instance, that while AHCs seek to improve public health as an end in itself, for-profit companies tend to undertake public health work only if it enhances their profits or reputation or conforms to their plan for charitable giving. The divergence of these missions suggests that in addition to concerns about academic leaders’ receiving undue personal income – concerns that apparently animated the Partners policy – important concerns about the responsibilities of academic leaders and directors should be addressed. A director of a for-profit company has a fiduciary responsibility to the company, owners, or stockholders to increase profits.4 A dean or department chair at an AHC has a responsibility to advance the academic institution’s mission.

Notes:

Free Full Text