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

Call to Action: Two Parts

Overcoming barriers and creating momentum for change requires leaders in the profession to think differently about conflict of interest. If the medical profession does not act, it will lose its prerogative.

We urge the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to provide leadership on these issues across all medical schools and teaching hospitals in the United States. The AAMC has convened a task force dedicated to this issue. To fulfill the AAMC mission of “strengthening the quality of medical education and improving the nation's health by enhancing the effectiveness of academic medicine,” the organization must now promote a national agenda and a level playing field.

The AAMC should:

  • Exert leadership by strengthening its guidelines related to conflict of interest
  • Provide assistance to member AMCs so they can implement effective reforms
  • Create an oversight committee to evaluate the actions of member organizations.

While the AAMC needs to provide overall guidance, it will be individual AMCs that determine the ultimate success or failure of efforts to eliminate conflicts of interest. Therefore, we call on all academic medical centers to:

  • Examine best practices at other institutions, including those mentioned
  • Assess current policies on conflict of interest
  • Engage faculty broadly to build commitment at all levels
  • Address key issues and announce the new policies to the professional and broader communities
  • Enforce adherence through an effective monitoring system.

Conclusion

The medical profession and the public look to AMCs for leadership. New standards must demonstrate the importance of evidence-based practice, free from industry influence and bias. The Prescription Project is assisting AMCs by facilitating communication, providing toolkits and developing concrete and effective best-practice recommendations.

Strong standards will advance patient well-being and free physicians from conflicts of interest. Now is the time for action.

The Prescription Project (RxP), led by Community Catalyst and the Institute on Medicine as a Profession and funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, seeks to eliminate conflicts of interest created by industry marketing by promoting policy change among academic medical centers, professional medical societies and public and private payers. The Prescription Project has spent the past six months working closely with academic medical centers to investigate their current polices and promote best practices among them.

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