scholarly journals In Defense of Industry-Physician Relationships

2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (9) ◽  
pp. 987-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don K. Nakayama

The objective was to examine the economic, ethical, and legal foundations for conflict of interest restrictions between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device industries (“industry”). Recently academic medical centers and professional organizations have adopted policies that restrict permissible interactions between industry and physicians. The motive is to avoid financial conflicts of interest that compromise core values of altruism and fiduciary relationships. Productive relationships between industry and physicians provide novel drugs and devices of immense benefit to society. The issues are opposing views of medical economics, profit motives, medical professionalism, and extent to which interactions should be lawfully restricted. Industry goals are congruent with those of physicians: patient welfare, safety, and running a profitable business. Profits are necessary to develop drugs and devices. Physician collaborators invent products, refine them, and provide feedback and so are appropriately paid. Marketing is necessary to bring approved products to patients. Economic realities limit the extent to which physicians treat their patients altruistically and as fiduciaries. Providing excellent service to patients may be a more realistic standard. Statements from industry and the American College of Surgeons appropriately guide professional behavior. Preservation of industry-physician relationships is vital to maintain medical innovation and progress.

JAMA ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 295 (24) ◽  
pp. 2845
Author(s):  
Troyen A. Brennan ◽  
David J. Rothman ◽  
Susan Chimonas ◽  
James Naughton ◽  
Jordan Cohen ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 500-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Greenwood ◽  
Carl H. Coleman ◽  
Kathleen M. Boozang

In recent years, the government, advocacy organizations, the press, and the public have pressured universities, academic medical centers, and physicianinvestigators to do more to ensure that their financial interests and relationships do not conflict with their duties to conduct high-quality research and protect the safety and welfare of clinical trial participants. A number of factors underlie the increased focus. First, private sector funding of clinical research has grown both in absolute terms and as a proportion of overall funding. In 2008, the pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology industries’ domestic research and development expenditures constituted approximately 60.9% of funding for biomedical research in the United States; the next largest funder, the National Institutes of Health, funded 27.9%. Private industry spent $58.6 billion on research in 2007, up from $40 billion in 2003, an increase of 25% after adjusting for inflation.


2006 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin P. Weinfurt ◽  
Michaela A. Dinan ◽  
Jennifer S. Allsbrook ◽  
Jo??lle Y. Friedman ◽  
Mark A. Hall ◽  
...  

JAMA ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 295 (24) ◽  
pp. 2845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orin M. Goldblum ◽  
Michael J. Franzblau

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan A. Liang ◽  
Tim MacKey

Individual conflicts of interest are rife in healthcare, and substantial attention has been given to address them. Yet a more substantive concern-institutional conflicts of interest (“ICOIs”) in academic medical centers (“AMCs”) engaged in research and clinical care—have yet to garner sufficient attention, despite their higher stakes for patient safety and welfare. ICOIs are standard in AMCs, are virtually unregulated, and have led to patient deaths. Upon review of ICOIs, we find a clear absence of substantive efforts to confront these conflicts. We also assess the Jesse Gelsinger case, which resulted in the death of a study participant exemplifying a deep-seated culture of institutional indifference and complicity in unmanaged conflicts. Federal policy, particularly the Bayh-Dole Act, also creates and promotes ICOIs. Efforts to address ICOIs are narrow or abstract, and do not provide for a systemic infrastructure with effective enforcement mechanisms. Hence, in this paper, we provide a comprehensive proposal to address ICOIs utilizing a “Centralized System” model that would proactively review, manage, approve, and conduct assessments of conflicts, and would have independent power to evaluate and enforce any violations via sanctions. It would also manage any industry funds and pharmaceutical samples and be a condition of participation in public healthcare reimbursement and federal grant funding.The ICOI policy itself would provide for disclosure requirements, separate management of commercial enterprise units from academic units, voluntary remediation of conflicts, and education on ICOIs. Finally, we propose a new model of medical education—academic detailing—in place of current marketing-focused “education.” Using such a system, AMCs can wean themselves from industry reliance and promote a culture of accountability and independence from industry influence. By doing so, clinical research and treatment can return to a focus on patient care, not profits.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document