X
(All Fields are required)
Report

Time For Change
Addressing Conflicts of Interest at Academic Medical Centers


Quick Summary

Academic medical centers (AMCs) form the intellectual core of medicine, training future doctors and researchers, and establishing standards that guide practicing physicians in the wider community. Where pharmaceutical industry marketing conflicts with the goals of patient care and professionalism, AMCs can provide leadership and guidance by establishing new standards on physician-industry relationships.

Time For Change
Full Report PDF Download Chart Icon

Contact

Linda Paris, Tel: 202-540-6354

Report Project

Report Topic

Setting new standards

In January 2006, a group of leading physicians and researchers from the Institute of Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) and the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation called for AMCs to take the lead in ending conflicts of interest between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the authors outlined several recommendations toward change. (16) The article generated a great deal of interest in the press and from within the medical profession. (17-22) Following its publication, a number of AMCs strengthened their policies. The Prescription Project was launched by The Pew Charitable Trusts in February 2007 with a major goal of promoting the JAMA recommendations.

To assess current conflict of interest policies at—and recommend “best practices” for— AMCs, the Prescription Project conducted an in-depth investigation of policies, or draft policies, at a number of leading AMCs. Using online research and interviews, we collected information on policies as well as implementation histories, successes, failures, and future plans. Drawing on the JAMA recommendations, we used the following specific criteria for assessing policies:

  1. Gifting: Do AMCs permit gifts to physicians from industry? Are there any restrictions on “giveaway” items, meals, payment for travel to, or time at, meetings, or payment for CME participation?
  2. Drug samples: Do AMCs permit physicians to accept samples? Or is there a system (e.g. vouchers for low-income patients) that distances the company from the physician? Are samples limited to patient use, or may physicians use samples for themselves and their families?
  3. Drug formularies: Do AMCs permit physicians with financial ties to drug companies to serve on committees overseeing formularies or the purchase of medical devices?
  4. Continuing medical education (CME): How do AMCs manage industry funds for CME? What policies are in place to ensure that CME events remain free of influence from donors?
  5. Funds for physician travel: Do AMCs permit manufacturers to directly fund travel of faculty and trainees? What policies govern funds for physician travel?
  6. Speakers bureaus and ghostwriting: Do AMCs allow faculty to serve on speakers bureaus or to publish articles or editorials that are ghostwritten by companies?
  7. Consulting and research grants: How do AMCs oversee grants for consulting and research? Do they require an explicit contract with specific deliverables? Do they allow “no strings attached” grants and gifts to individual researchers?
Date added:
Sep 12, 2007
Contact:
Linda Paris, Tel: 202-540-6354
Project:
Pew Prescription Project
Topic:
Conflicts of Interest
Related Expert:
Allan Coukell
References:
Collapse All
close

References:

1. Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:673-681.
2. Sales makeover. Medical Marketing & Media. Nov, 2003.
3. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283:373-380.
4. Kassirer JP. On the Take : How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
5. Angell M. The Truth about the Drug Companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House, Inc.; 2004.
6. Avorn J. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf; 2004.
7. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290:252-255.
8. Ross JS, Lackner JE, Lurie P, Gross CP, Wolfe S, Krumholz HM. Pharmaceutical company payments to physicians: Early experiences with disclosure laws in Vermont and Minnesota. JAMA. 2007;297:1216-1223.
9. Molloy W, Strang D, Guyatt G, et al. Assessing the quality of drug detailing. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:825-832.
10. Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Physicians' behavior and their interactions with drug companies. A controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA. 1994;271:684-689.
11. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742-1750.
12. Chren MM. Interactions between physicians and drug company representatives. Am J Med. 1999;107:182-3.
13. Madhavan S, Amonkar MM, Elliott D, Burke K, Gore P. The gift relationship between pharmaceutical companies and physicians: An exploratory survey of physicians. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997;22:207-215.
14. Chimonas S, Brennan TA, Rothman DJ. Physicians and drug representatives: Exploring the dynamics of the relationship. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:184-190.
15. Coyle SL. Physician-industry relations, Part 1: Individual physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:396-402.
16. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295:429-433.
17. Harris G. In article, doctors back ban on gifts from drug makers. New York Times. Jan 25 2006;A14.
18. Girion L. Medical ethics reform urged: Ties between doctors and vendors undermine scientific integrity and patient care, group says. Los Angeles Times. Jan 26 2006.
19. Rubin R. Med schools urged to keep tabs on drugmakers. USA Today. Jan 24 2006.
20. Connolly C. Distance sought between doctors and drug industry. Washington Post. Jan 25 2007;A8.
21. Wilde Matthews A. Limits are sought for doctors ties to drug makers. Wall Street Journal. Jan 25 2006.
22. Kowalczyk L. New curbs urged on doctor perks: Small gifts seen influential. Boston Globe. Jan 25 2006.
23. Luke R. Utah AG makes Zyprexa eight in latest big pharma lawsuit pile-on. LegalNewsline.com. May 18 2007. Available from: http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/195364-utah-ag-makes-zyprexa-eight-in-latest-big-pharma-lawsuit-pile-on.
24. Department of Justice. Warner Lambert to pay $430 million to resolve criminal & civil health care liability relating to off-label promotion. Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_civ_322.htm. Accessed July 25, 2007.
25. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Financial conflicts of interest in physicians' relationships with the pharmaceutical industry -- self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1891-1900.
26. House democrats' proposal takes aim at drug, device company gifts to doctors. BNA Health Care Daily. July 17 2007.
27. S.2029 “The Physician Payments Sunshine Act.” www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2029 Accessed September 12, 2007.
28. Committee on Finance United States Senate. Use of educational grants by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Available at: http://www.finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2007press/prb042507a.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2007.
29. Baucus M, Grassley C. Letter to Murray Kopelow, chief executive, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (Apr 25, 2007).
30. United States Senate Special Committee on Aging. Paid to prescribe? Examining the relationship between doctors and the drug industry (hearing), June 27, 2007.

Related Resources

''Already Feeling the Heat''

Media Coverage

"The legislation requiring public disclosure of the financial relationships between healthcare vendors and physicians has been widely discussed in policy circles for years. Critics claimed payments for speaking, consulting, research or even the small trinkets and meals delivered during routine sales calls unduly influenced physician choices and inflated healthcare costs. To combat those effects, Congress required public reporting of those payments in a publicly accessible database. The legislation, labeled the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, was included in the 2010 healthcare reform law."

More

Letter from Pew to CMS Regarding Physician Payments Sunshine Act

Issue Brief

Prescription project director Danny Carlat identifies issues with the Physician Payments Sunshine Act requiring further clarification and guidance. Addressing those would ensure that manufacturers can appropriately implement the final rule, and enable consumers to benefit from transparency reports published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

More

Advancing Integrity in Medical Education

Other Resource
The Pew Charitable Trusts is working to decrease the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on doctors’ practices. With a three-year grant from the Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education Grant Program, Pew is collaborating several partners to improve conflict-of-interest policies within the 158 medical schools and 400 major teaching hospitals in the United States. More

Pew Comments on Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services' Information Collection Activities Draft Guidance

Issue Brief

The Pew Charitable Trusts appreciates this opportunity to submit comments to CMS's "Information Collection Activities" draft guidance. We suggest that both the research and non-research payment templates be modified in order to make it easier for consumers to identify which drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies are associated with particular transfers of value.

More

One Step Closer to Medical Transparency: Pew's Analysis of the Final Rule for the Physician Payments Sunshine Act

Other Resource
On Feb. 1, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published the final rule guiding implementation of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which Congress passed as part of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010 to increase transparency in the relationships between physicians and drug and medical device makers. Here are some of the highlights. More