Healthy Skepticism Library item: 6938

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

Edwards DA.
Gifts to physicians from the pharmaceutical industry.
JAMA 2000 May 24-31; 283:(20):2656

Abstract:

Tenery’s commentary and Wazana’s article take a limited view of financial reality. Of $11 billion the industry spends to promote itself only $5 billion is spent on activities involving pharmaceutical representatives. At least some of the rest appears to subsidize publication of scientific articles. It is naïve to expect that a business would provide support without some reciprocal expectation. With many medical boards mandating continuing medical education requirements CME has become an unfunded political mandate. The demand has spawned its own business opportunities. Absolutely no scientific evidence has demonstrated that these mandates actually improve care, decrease malpractice claims, or reduce patient risk. The implication that nonapproved education is somehow tainted is nonsense. Medical editors should consider renouncing funding from all advertisers related to health care as a fundamental and irreparable conflict of interest. With good business practices most journals would be affected little. Finally, I was puzzled by the inconsistency of Tenery’s comment that “[t]he practice should be judged …” [which] struck me as another version of “we’ve already established what you are: now we’re just haggling over the price.”

Keywords:
*letter to the editor/United States/ Commerce Conflict of Interest* Drug Industry* Interprofessional Relations* Physicians*