Washington – Declaring that the pervasive influence of drug-industry money is distorting doctors’ treatment decisions and scientific findings, a prestigious panel of experts Tuesday called on colleagues to adopt far-reaching new conflict-of-interest policies.
In an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the group argued that voluntary efforts to limit corporate inducements have failed, resulting in the over-prescribing of some medications and the withholding of negative discoveries about others.
Highly public cases involving the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, antidepressants for children and spinal implants made by Medtronic highlight the need for stricter measures, they said.
“My mother told me never to accept gifts from strangers. If a stranger wants to give you a gift, it’s very likely they want something in return,” said Jordan Cohen, president of the American Association of Medical Colleges and a co-author of the new proposal.
The panel, which includes Cohen, officials from several medical schools and members of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession, urged the nation’s 400 teaching hospitals to impose stringent measures, including an outright ban on accepting gifts, meals and drug samples and tight restrictions on outside income.
A series of articles published today in the journal Academic Medicine reaches similar conclusions. It says strict, standardized policies are needed to ensure patients receive unbiased, evidence-based treatments.
Spokesmen for the pharmaceutical industry said the extra steps are unnecessary and could deprive physicians of valuable information.
From their first rounds as residents, doctors travel in a world increasingly dominated by drug company salespeople proffering meals, office supplies, entertainment and even cash to speak at conferences or sit on advisory boards.
One congressional inquiry cited in the report found that drug executives steer research grants to doctors and schools that promote the firm’s drugs.
