"We don't like the practice, and we want it to stop..." Jean Silver-Isenstadt
The quote is by the Executive Director of the National Physicians Alliance, NPA, a group whose members are mostly young doctors in training. Ms. Silver-Isenstadt was commenting on a Kennebec Journal article asserting that pharmaceutical company data-mining of a doctors prescriptive history serves mainly to influence physicians to prescribe more expensive medicines, instead of to provide the best treatment. She also said: "We think it's a contaminant to the doctor-patient relationship, and it's driving up costs."
We would like to support the physicians at NPA for taking this step to stand up to the powerful pharmaceutical lobby. Pharmaceutical marketing to physicians is a significant issue of national concern. The May 15th edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine includes an in-depth editorial titled "Prescriber Profiling: Time to Call It Quits". The author, a doctor, concludes that if physicians want prescriber profiling to end, they must lobby state legislatures to enact laws, lobby their professional organization to support such laws, and call on the AMA to place further limits on selling physician data for use in prescriber profiling. Physicians should also refuse to participate in marketing research that generates prescribing patterns because the primary purpose of this practice is to enhance sales, not patient welfare.
If NPA is serious about its mission, the time has come for physicians to roll back the influence of commercial marketing practices on clinical decisions. John and Jane Public can now rest assured that the doctors of the future are aware of the conflicts arising from drug company solicitations and that those doctors are willing to place the interest of the patient first, before profits.
Showing posts with label doctors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctors. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
MD's Confirm Industry Perks
"Doctors Still Taking Drug Company Freebies." MSNBC
A New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM, national survey of physicians in 6 specialties [anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics] confirms an extremely unhealthy relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. The results of the survey provide the following statistics: Most physicians (94%) reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and most of these relationships involved receiving food in the workplace (83%) or receiving drug samples (78%). More than one third of the respondents (35%) received reimbursement for costs associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education, and more than one quarter (28%) received payments for consulting, giving lectures, or enrolling patients in trials.
MSNBC asserts that this NEJM survey is follow-up to one done in 2002 by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group that voluntarily adopted rules limiting the value of monetary gifts and certain entertainment perks. When asked to comment on the results of the NEJM survey, the response was this is "common knowledge". Apparently this trade group, and by extension its physician members, believe the practices unearthed by the survey constitute a legitimate way to educate physicians about the latest drugs and technology.
A New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM, national survey of physicians in 6 specialties [anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics] confirms an extremely unhealthy relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. The results of the survey provide the following statistics: Most physicians (94%) reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and most of these relationships involved receiving food in the workplace (83%) or receiving drug samples (78%). More than one third of the respondents (35%) received reimbursement for costs associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education, and more than one quarter (28%) received payments for consulting, giving lectures, or enrolling patients in trials.
MSNBC asserts that this NEJM survey is follow-up to one done in 2002 by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group that voluntarily adopted rules limiting the value of monetary gifts and certain entertainment perks. When asked to comment on the results of the NEJM survey, the response was this is "common knowledge". Apparently this trade group, and by extension its physician members, believe the practices unearthed by the survey constitute a legitimate way to educate physicians about the latest drugs and technology.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Payments to MD's Beat Glare of Disclosure Laws
"loopholes allow drug companies to hide millions of dollars in payments and make it difficult to know who’s receiving them." MSNBC
According to a recent study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, laws in Minnesota and Vermont requiring puplic disclosure of pharmaceutical company payments to physicians do not actually provide access to such information. In Vermont, 61% of payments were not released to the public because pharmaceutical companies designated them as "trade secrets" and 75% of publicly disclosed payments were missing information necessary to identify the recipient.
Whatever information provided proved of limited quality once accessed, however the authors were able to conclude that substantial numbers of payments in excess of $100 or more were made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies. The following two books will provide additional insight: "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us, and What to Do About It", by Marcia Angell, ISBN 0-375-50846-5, New York, NY, Random House, 2004 and "On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health", by Jerome Kassirer, ISBN 0-19-517684-7, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2004.
According to a recent study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, laws in Minnesota and Vermont requiring puplic disclosure of pharmaceutical company payments to physicians do not actually provide access to such information. In Vermont, 61% of payments were not released to the public because pharmaceutical companies designated them as "trade secrets" and 75% of publicly disclosed payments were missing information necessary to identify the recipient.
Whatever information provided proved of limited quality once accessed, however the authors were able to conclude that substantial numbers of payments in excess of $100 or more were made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies. The following two books will provide additional insight: "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us, and What to Do About It", by Marcia Angell, ISBN 0-375-50846-5, New York, NY, Random House, 2004 and "On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health", by Jerome Kassirer, ISBN 0-19-517684-7, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)