corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18796

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: news

Doctors Cut Some Drug Company Ties Amid Rising Scrutiny, But Freebies Still Common
PharmaLive 2010 Nov 8
http://pharmalive.com/news/index.cfm?articleID=742896


Full text:

Doctors have sharply cut some financial ties to drug companies, thanks to increased scrutiny about relationships that critics say improperly influence medical treatment, a survey suggests.

The biggest change occurred in the number of doctors who accept drug company money for attending medical meetings, including covering travel to sometimes exotic locations. That fell from 35 per cent in 2004 to 18 per cent in last year, the survey found.

Other declines included a drop from 83 per cent to 71 per cent in the portion of doctors who said they let drug companies pay for food or drinks; and the portion who got free drug samples, which fell from 78 per cent to almost 64 per cent. Those were the two most frequently reported practices.

``These relationships often raise concerns that doctors’ actions are motivated by what is best for their industrial partners rather than what is best for patients,’’ said Eric Campbell, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He led the study and was part of a research team that conducted a previous survey in 2004.

Since then, concerns that financial ties to drug companies improperly influence doctors’ treatment decisions have led to increased media attention, legislation and policy changes at medical schools and even in the pharmaceutical industry.

Last year, a drug industry trade group enacted new voluntary restrictions including a recommended ban on giving doctors non-educational gifts and taking them to restaurants.

Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, an outspoken critic of doctor-drug industry relationships, called the survey results ``really good news.’’

``It reflects physicians’ growing awareness that industry is an inappropriate partner in patient care,’’ said Fugh-Berman, an associate professor at Georgetown University. She was not involved in the study.

The researchers mailed questionnaires in May 2009 to randomly selected doctors, including internists, pediatricians, surgeons, heart specialists and psychiatrists. A total of 1,891 completed the surveys, or 64 per cent. The researchers paid doctors $20 each as an incentive to respond.

Results were compared with the earlier survey and are published in Monday’s Archives of Internal Medicine.

Despite the downward trend, the survey suggests most doctors still accept some drug company freebies, including brand-name drug samples. While patients may appreciate getting free medicine, those freebies strongly affect doctors’ prescribing habits, Fugh-Berman said.

Doctors surveyed were asked how often they prescribed brand-name drugs when patients requested them, instead of cheaper generics. Doctors with industry ties were more likely to say they did so often than those without ties.

The study was funded by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession, which runs an online database detailing conflict of interest policies at academic medical centres nationwide.

Online:

Archives: http://archinte.ama-assn.org

Institute on Medicine as a Profession: http://www.imapny.org

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963