Look at the date on this incredible article supposedly published in JAMA!!
Wait! This is not satire? It really WAS published April First in JAMA!???
They stole my idea? Iıll call my lawyers in the morning.
Jay
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/301/13/1367%20
JAMA Calls on Medical Associations to Cut Drug Industry Ties
Apr 15, 2009 5:39 PM, by Tamar Hosansky
In a special communication published in the April 1, 2009, issue of the
Journal of the American Medical Association, physician leaders called on
professional medical associations to sever most of their ties with drug with
and device companies.
In the article, "Professional Medical Associations and Their Relationships
with Industry: A Proposal for Controlling Conflict of Interest," the authors
say that because medical associations have wide-ranging influence over
healthcare policy, they must implement uniform and stringent procedures to
ensure their scientific integrity.
The article was written by lead author David J. Rothman, PhD, president,
Institute of Medicine As a Profession; and Bernard Schoenberg Professor of
Social Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University,
New York; along with 10 co-authors. The work was funded by The Pew
Charitable Trusts.
The authors acknowledge that their recommendations would require
associations to completely transform how they operate and "perhaps even give
up activities of considerable value." Nevertheless, at this critical
juncture, when the ties between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare
organizations have come under increased media and government scrutiny,
professional medical associations "cannot allow relationships with industry
to diminish the public's trust," the writers state.
Medical societies should work toward a complete ban of pharmaceutical and
medical device industry funding except for income from journal advertising
and exhibit hall fees, the authors propose. Since societies cannot achieve
this goal overnight, they should adopt interim policies, the authors
suggest, such as creating a central repository for drug industry funding,
which would allow the association the freedom to use the money as it sees
fit. Professional medical associations should also immediately restrict
total industry support so that it accounts for no more than 25 percent of
their operating budget.
he article offers 10 recommendations for reducing or eliminating conflicts
of interest, including some that involve continuing medical education and
healthcare meetings.
CME programs need safeguards in addition to those established by the
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, the authors say.
Pharmaceutical industry funding for CME should not be targeted for specific
activities, but funneled into a central pool. A CME committee whose members
are free of all industry ties should be responsible for distributing the
funds and selecting program topics and faculty. The article also suggests
associations seek alternative funding from independent foundations and
organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, and consider
raising registration fees.
To distance themselves from pharmaceutical marketing activities, medical
associations should not distribute items such as tote bags or lanyards with
company logos to their members at annual meetings, and should ban all gifts
and food in the exhibit hall, say the authors.
In addition, medical associations should prohibit pharmaceutical companies
from holding satellite symposia in conjunction with their annual meetings.
Associations should not endorse, facilitate, or accept funding for the
symposia; offer conference space to companies; nor assist companies in
marketing symposia by sharing attendees' names and addresses. Companies that
violate the rules could be banned from exhibiting at future meetings, the
article proposes.
Other recommendations involve industry-supported research, fellowships and
training programs, and publications. The authors also recommend a ban on
medical association product endorsements, and offer conflict-of-interest
guidelines for medical association officers, board members, and committee
members involved in formulating practice guidelines and developing outcome
measures.
he article garnered a favorable reaction from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa),
ranking member, Senate Committee on Finance. ³These recommendations carry a
lot of weight and represent a desire to build confidence and take away
questions raised by financial ties,² responded Grassley in a statement
issued on April 1. ³Iıll continue my effort to bring about full disclosure
of money from industry to physicians. Letting the sun shine in creates an
atmosphere for greater accountability, and thatıs good for everyone in the
medical profession and the patients who rely on their care.² Grassley is the
co-sponsor of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009, which would
require drug and device companies to publicly report payments to doctors. As
we reported in "CME in the Cross Hairs," (June 2007) Grassley also
spearheaded an investigation into pharmaceutical company influence over CME.
Not surprisingly, the JAMA article sparked concern and debate in the medical
meetings and continuing medical education communities. In a statement
released April 2, IEG, a sponsorship consulting company based in Chicago,
said the JAMA recommendations ³are akin to separating boys and girls on a
school bus to prevent teen pregnancy. Damning the many to discourage the
few, [the article] fails to address the complex issues underlying their
concerns. Indeed, this approach could just as easily send the true offenders
further into the shadows to find ways to game the system. All the while,
those building the right kinds of relationships will be stifled from doing
meaningful work, thereby hurting the patient population we all wish to
serve.² IEG details its own recommendations for addressing conflict of
interest in the white paper ³Focusing on Responsibility: Reframing the
Healthcare Industryıs Marketing Relationships,² available at
www.sponsorship.com, IEGıs Web site.
Some medical societies have already implemented some of the changes proposed
in the JAMA piece, or are considering them. At the American Association of
Neurological Surgeons, Rolling Meadows, Ill., Joni L. Shulman, associate
executive director, has been asked to analyze where AANS stands in relation
to the 10 recommendations outlined in the article, and what would be
involved if AANS decided to implement them.
In addition to complying with all ACCME criteria, the American Epilepsy
Society, West Hartford, Conn., has created a board-level compliance
committee to develop an organization-wide policy on all industry
relationships, says Jeffrey D. Melin, MEd, CMP, director of education. "We
no longer hold satellite symposia, and coincidentally our 2009-2010 annual
meeting budget is already projecting industry sponsorship and educational
grant support at the 25 percent level advocated for in the JAMA article," he
says.
Vol. 301 No. 13, April 1, 2009
JAMA
Professional Medical Associations and Their Relationships With Industry
A Proposal for Controlling Conflict of Interest
David J. Rothman, PhD; Walter J. McDonald, MD; Carol D. Berkowitz, MD; Susan
C. Chimonas, PhD; Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH; Ralph W. Hale, MD; Steven
E. Nissen, MD; June E. Osborn, MD; James H. Scully Jr, MD; Gerald E.
Thomson, MD; David Wofsy, MD
JAMA. 2009;301(13):1367-1372.
Professional medical associations (PMAs) play an essential role in defining
and advancing health care standards. Their conferences, continuing medical
education courses, practice guidelines, definitions of ethical norms, and
public advocacy positions carry great weight with physicians and the public.
Because many PMAs receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical and device
companies, it is crucial that their guidelines manage both real and
perceived conflict of interests. Any threat to the integrity of PMAs must be
thoroughly and effectively resolved. Current PMA policies, however, are not
uniform and often lack stringency. To address this situation, the authors
first identified and analyzed conflicts of interest that may affect the
activities, leadership, and members of PMAs. The authors then went on to
formulate guidelines, both short-term and long-term, to prevent the
appearance or reality of undue industry influence. The recommendations are
rigorous and would require many PMAs to transform their mode of operation
and perhaps, to forgo valuable activities. To maintain integrity, sacrifice
may be required. Nevertheless, these changes are in the best interest of the
PMAs, the profession, their members, and the larger society.
Author Affiliations: David J. Rothman, PhD, president, Institute on Medicine
as a Profession, and Bernard Schoenberg Professor of Social Medicine,
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York;
Walter J. McDonald, MD, past CEO, Council of Medical Specialty Societies,
Chicago, Illinois; Carol D. Berkowitz, MD, past president, American Academy
of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Illinois; Susan C. Chimonas, PhD, research
scholar, Center on Medicine as a Profession, College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York; Catherine D. DeAngelis,
MD, MPH, editor in chief, JAMA, Chicago, Illinois; Ralph W. Hale, MD,
executive vice president, American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, Washington, DC; Steven E. Nissen, MD, past president,
American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC; June E. Osborn, MD, past
president, Josiah Macy, Jr Foundation, New York, New York; James H. Scully
Jr, MD, medical director and CEO, American Psychiatric Association,
Arlington, Virginia; Gerald E. Thomson, MD, past president, American College
of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and chairman of the board of
directors, Institute on Medicine as a Profession, College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York; and David Wofsy, MD,
professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
