CSPI~Will Professional Medical Associations End Industry Ties?

[Guest guest]

Center for Science in the Public Interest,

Washington, DC

April 01, 2009

Will Professional Medical Associations End Industry Ties?

The guidelines published in today's _Journal of the American Medical

Association_ (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/13/1367) that

called on

professional medical societies to end most of their financial ties to

industry is long overdue. But will any of the major associations pay attention?

Professional societies are crucial disseminators of knowledge in medicine.

They create committees that establish best practices in their fields, write

clinical practice guiddlines, conduct continuing medical education for their

members, run annual meetings where major research gets released, and lobby on

behalf of their members in Washington and in state capitals across the

country. At some societies, a substantial portion of general operating revenue

comes

from the drug, biotechnology and medical device firms that sell products

aimed at those specialties.

That's why it was a fairly radical proposal published in JAMA today, because

it called on those societies to:

* Reduce industry contributions to their general budgets to 25 percent

immediately with an aim of lowering it to zero within five years;

* Collect all industry contributions for continuing medical education and

research in centralized pools and create panels of physicians without conflicts

of interest to develop the programs and distribute the money;

* Prohibit industry from funding societies to develop and write clinical

practice guidelines or establish outcomes measures;

* " Encourage " the creation of guideline-writing panels where members were

without conflicts of interest;

* Prohibit sitting officers and board members of the societies from having

conflicts of interest, starting from the date of their appointments, which

usually precedes taking office by about two years; and

* End endorsement of products as a way of raising revenue.

" We really want to make certain that the recommendations, the education, all

that professional medical associations do, has no link or tie to industry

marketing, " said Rothman, who heads the Institute for for Medicine as a

Profession at Columbia University, which received funding from Pew Charitable

Trusts to develop the proposal.

It's notable that the guideline-writing group did not adopt the strict " no

conflicts " policy for members of guideline-writing panels that it used for

control of continuing medical education, for instance. " This was a consensus

report, " said Nissen, a co-signer and past president of the American

College of Cardiology.

However, it was nice to see that the proposal said professional societies

could establish conflict-free guideline writing committees without harming the

end product:

One concern might be that such restrictions will exclude the most qualified

individuals from guideline committees. However, there is a tendency to

confuse the most qualified with the most visible. Moreover, any difficulties

can be

easily circumvented by circulating drafts of guidelines widely for comment,

but leaving the drafting of the final document to a group of knowledgeable

professionals, who are free of conflict of interest insofar as a particular

class of drugs or devices is concerned.

During a conference call, three of the 11 co-authors on the paper predicted

many major medical societies will seriously consider the proposal. " Ten years

ago (concern about conflict of interest) was a breeze, five years ago a

wind, now it's a gale storm, " Rothman said. " Change is going to come. The

likelihood of these recommendations being implemented is quite strong. "

Only two current leaders at professional societies -- Ralph W. Hale of the

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and H. Scully of the

American Psychiatric Association (APA) -- were among the 11 signers. Last

week the APA made news by declaring it would stop taking money from industry.

The current report comes two years after a similar guideline written under

the auspices of IMAP and published in JAMA called for reducing industry

influence at academic medical centers. At the time, just a handful of AMCs had

rigorous policies that limited faculty ties to industry. Today's that up to 25,

Rothman said.

The next target on IMAP's radar screen: patient advocacy groups, many of

which receive all or nearly all of their funding from the drug, biotechnology

or

medical device companies. " We're going to address these patient advocacy

groups, some of which are grass roots and some of which are astroturf, " Rothman

said.Posted by gooznews at April 1, 2009 08:37 AM

_http://www.gooznews.com/archives/001369.html_

(http://www.gooznews.com/archives/001369.html)

**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a

recession.

(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

[Guest guest]

Good article. Sharon, I'm sure it must feel great to know that your efforts are

paying off.

________________________________

From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@...>

; iequality ;

AspergillusSupport@...; MBallardAl@...;

Nomoreschoolmold@...

Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 7:45:56 AM

Subject: [] CSPI~Will Professional Medical Associations End

Industry Ties?

Center for Science in the Public Interest,

Washington, DC

April 01, 2009

Will Professional Medical Associations End Industry Ties?

The guidelines published in today's _Journal of the American Medical

Association_ (http://jama. ama-assn. org/cgi/content/ full/301/ 13/1367) that

called on

professional medical societies to end most of their financial ties to

industry is long overdue. But will any of the major associations pay attention?

Professional societies are crucial disseminators of knowledge in medicine.

They create committees that establish best practices in their fields, write

clinical practice guiddlines, conduct continuing medical education for their

members, run annual meetings where major research gets released, and lobby on

behalf of their members in Washington and in state capitals across the

country. At some societies, a substantial portion of general operating revenue

comes

from the drug, biotechnology and medical device firms that sell products

aimed at those specialties.

That's why it was a fairly radical proposal published in JAMA today, because

it called on those societies to:

* Reduce industry contributions to their general budgets to 25 percent

immediately with an aim of lowering it to zero within five years;

* Collect all industry contributions for continuing medical education and

research in centralized pools and create panels of physicians without conflicts

of interest to develop the programs and distribute the money;

* Prohibit industry from funding societies to develop and write clinical

practice guidelines or establish outcomes measures;

* " Encourage " the creation of guideline-writing panels where members were

without conflicts of interest;

* Prohibit sitting officers and board members of the societies from having

conflicts of interest, starting from the date of their appointments, which

usually precedes taking office by about two years; and

* End endorsement of products as a way of raising revenue.

" We really want to make certain that the recommendations, the education, all

that professional medical associations do, has no link or tie to industry

marketing, " said Rothman, who heads the Institute for for Medicine as a

Profession at Columbia University, which received funding from Pew Charitable

Trusts to develop the proposal.

It's notable that the guideline-writing group did not adopt the strict " no

conflicts " policy for members of guideline-writing panels that it used for

control of continuing medical education, for instance. " This was a consensus

report, " said Nissen, a co-signer and past president of the American

College of Cardiology.

However, it was nice to see that the proposal said professional societies

could establish conflict-free guideline writing committees without harming the

end product:

One concern might be that such restrictions will exclude the most qualified

individuals from guideline committees. However, there is a tendency to

confuse the most qualified with the most visible. Moreover, any difficulties

can be

easily circumvented by circulating drafts of guidelines widely for comment,

but leaving the drafting of the final document to a group of knowledgeable

professionals, who are free of conflict of interest insofar as a particular

class of drugs or devices is concerned.

During a conference call, three of the 11 co-authors on the paper predicted

many major medical societies will seriously consider the proposal. " Ten years

ago (concern about conflict of interest) was a breeze, five years ago a

wind, now it's a gale storm, " Rothman said. " Change is going to come. The

likelihood of these recommendations being implemented is quite strong. "

Only two current leaders at professional societies -- Ralph W. Hale of the

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and H. Scully of the

American Psychiatric Association (APA) -- were among the 11 signers. Last

week the APA made news by declaring it would stop taking money from industry.

The current report comes two years after a similar guideline written under

the auspices of IMAP and published in JAMA called for reducing industry

influence at academic medical centers. At the time, just a handful of AMCs had

rigorous policies that limited faculty ties to industry. Today's that up to 25,

Rothman said.

The next target on IMAP's radar screen: patient advocacy groups, many of

which receive all or nearly all of their funding from the drug, biotechnology

or

medical device companies. " We're going to address these patient advocacy

groups, some of which are grass roots and some of which are astroturf, " Rothman

said.Posted by gooznews at April 1, 2009 08:37 AM

_http://www.gooznews.com/archives/001369.html_

(http://www.gooznews.com/archives/001369.html)

************ **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a

recession.

(http://jobs. aol.com/gallery/ growing-job- industries? ncid=emlcntuscar

e00000003)