Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Prominent Docs Weigh in on Pharma Gift Restrictions and Disclosure

August 7, 2008 By kathleen

For another perspective on this issue, see the letter included below from four prominent MA medical leaders: Dr. David Coleman, Chief of Medicine at Boston Medical Center; Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief, NEJM and Harvard Medical School; Dr. Jerry Kassirer, Tufts Medical School; and Dr. Steve Tosi, Chief Medical Officer, UMass. The letter was sent to Gov. Patrick and the Legislature back in June in support of Sen. Murray’s original proposal to ban all gifts to physicians.

June 23, 2008

Dear Governor Patrick, Senate President Murray, and Speaker DiMasi:

We are writing in support of legislation that would prohibit pharmaceutical and medical device companies from providing gifts to health care providers and health care providers from accepting gifts from pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

As physicians, researchers and educators who have closely examined the relationship between industry gifts to physicians and prescribing patterns, we believe the industry’s persistent use of gifts to market drugs to doctors has a corrosive effect on the medical profession and undermines patient care. Patients must have the confidence that their physician’s prescribing decisions are a result of a careful examination

of all the independent scientific evidence, not biased sales pitches sweetened with gifts to sell product. In addition, medical education should be as free as possible of potential commercial bias.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that 94 percent of physicians have received food, samples, reimbursements or payments from the industry. While skeptics scoff at the idea that branded pens or coffee mugs can influence prescribing decisions, numerous studies have found that gifts of whatever value can and do have an impact. Gifts to physicians increase overall prescription rates, reduce

generic prescribing, and rapidly increase prescribing of the newest most expensive drugs, including those of only marginal benefit over existing options with real-world safety records. And, contrary to popular belief, the intellectual aptitude and education required to become a physician do not make physicians any

less susceptible to the persuasive power of marketing. There is abundant evidence that gifts, even small gifts, cause recipients to reciprocate, affecting their choices and decisions. Research also shows that

individuals cannot accurately assess their own bias.

For these reasons, many other professions adhere to strict ethics codes that bar receipt of gifts, while elected and government officials are guided by public finance laws prohibiting gifts from lobbyists. We do not believe physicians should be treated differently.

We would also like to respond to some of the arguments advanced by gift ban opponents, who claim the measure will have a negative impact on the life sciences industry in Massachusetts. Last month, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) issued recommendations for all academic health centers regarding physician-industry interactions. Representatives from the biotech and pharmaceutical companies were among the 30 participants on the AAMC task force. While many of us objected to the industry’s participation on a task force making recommendations on medical education, the task force did unanimously agree on the AAMC recommendation to ban gifts of any value to physicians and on the need for standards to guide physician-industry interactions. Indeed, such reform is already underway at numerous medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country. In fact, the Boston University

School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, and University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center have recently passed strict new policies that ban gifts and free meals. A law banning gifts to physicians and other prescribers will ensure that reform extends to individuals, clinics and group medical practices,

as well.

We also find particularly outrageous GlaxoSmithKline’s threat to pull out of Massachusetts if a gift ban bill passes. We hope state policymakers will reject the biopharmaceutical industry’s attempt to blackmail

state officials in order to preserve unethical marketing practices. Contrary to the industry’s claims, gift ban policies at academic medical centers and a gift ban law will not discourage collaboration with life sciences companies on innovative disease-fighting research and treatment. These policies only ban inappropriate strategies to sell products, not appropriate sharing of information. If drug companies’ products have merit, why do they need to use gifts to sell them?

Given that Massachusetts boasts some of the world’s leading medical institutions and a life sciences industry poised to receive a $1 billion investment from the state, it is only logical that industry should be subject to standards to ensure collaborations are free of financial conflicts of interest and in the best interest of patients and taxpayers.

We urge the Commonwealth to help protect patients and taxpayers from harmful industry marketing practices that increase health care costs, diminish the quality of care, and decrease confidence in the medical profession.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Marcia Angell, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Harvard Medical School

Former Editor-in-Chief

New England Journal of Medicine

Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D.

Distinguished Professor, Tufts University

School of Medicine

Visiting Professor, Stanford University School

of Medicine

David Coleman, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Chief of the Division of Medicine

Boston Medical Center

Chairman, Department of Medicine

Boston University School of Medicine

Stephen E. Tosi, M.D.

Sr. Vice President & Chief Medical Officer

UMass Memorial Health Care

CC: Massachusetts State Representatives and Massachusetts State Senators

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: biotech, health-care, massachusetts, pharmaceutical, phrma, physicians

Comments

  1. stephgm says

    August 7, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    But I still find it odd that gifts are conflated with mandated disclosure of details around research grants.  They aren’t the same thing.

    <

    p>

    Data used in clinical trials are already public, as manadated by the FDA. Go to http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

    <

    p>Clinicaltrials.gov is my first source of information in putting together competitive intelligence around the niche being pursued around a competitor’s clinical compound, but it does not have everything I typically am seeking.  Companies vary in the amount of detail they provide about their research.  Sometimes a researcher is listed as contact, but more often only the general location of a clinical trial is provided  (Occasionally I’ve used reverse lookup on a phone number to figure out which institution is involved in hopes of identifying the researcher, but that’s no help if the phone number is a central one provided by the pharmaceutical company.)

    <

    p>I’m not insisting a particiular normative conclusion by the above — just wanted to correct the implication that clinicaltrials.gov necessarily discloses relationships between pharmaceutical companies and specific academic collaborators.  They do not.  

  2. mcrd says

    August 8, 2008 at 9:30 am

    McCain- Feingold was the final solution to end the corruption of politics. Our endless myriad of laws (on the books) would stop theft. Yet human beings always seem to find the “end run.” Granted, there needs to be scrutiny. But all reserachers/physicians are being painted with the samew broad brush. You will never get rid of the “crooks.” They are that way way by nature/prediliction. More laws simply moves us closer to the police state. If folks in whatever society paid more attention to the basic tenets of “The Ten Commandants” and less time with attempting to legislate bad behavior away, that would have infinitely more success. But that is just common sense and God forbid we use common sense.  

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.