Academic medical centers and financial conflicts of interest

JAMA

Volumn 299, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 695-697

  Rothman, David J ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITORIAL; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; ECONOMICS; MEDICAL SCHOOL; NOTE; POLICY; RESEARCH; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; RESEARCH; SCHOOLS, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 39049100429     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.6.695     Document Type: Editorial

References (25)

1. Foster RSJ. Conflicts of interest: recognition, disclosure, and management. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196(4):505-517.
2. Developments in the law: conflicts of interest in the legal profession. Harv Law Rev. 1981;94(6):1244-1503. doi:10.2307/1340756.
3. Stark A. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2000.
4. John Moore v The Regents of the University of California. California SCo, S006987, 51 Cal 3d 120 (Cal 1990).
5. American Medical Association. E-8.061 Ethical guidelines for gifts to physicians from industry. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/e- 8_061.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2008.
6. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals: 2002. http://www.phrma.org/files/ PhRMA%20Code.pdf. Accessed on January 10, 2008.
7. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Compliance program guidance for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Fed Regist. 2003;68(86):23731-23743 Document 03-10949.
8. Chimonas S, Rothman DJ. New federal guidelines for physician- pharmaceutical industry relations: the politics of policy formation. Health Aff. 2005;24(4):949-960.
9. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295(4):429-433.
10. Kowalczyk L. BU and BMC tighten conflict-of-interest rules. Boston Globe. September 6, 2007. http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/ 09/bu_and_bmc_tigh.html. Accessed January 10, 2008.
11. Kowalczyk L. UMass policy limits doctor, drug maker ties; conflict of interest rules among strictest in country. Boston Globe. December 24, 2007:A1.
12. Fallik D. Penn bans gifts from drug reps; doctors' decisions should not be influenced, an official said. The Philadelphia Inquirer. May 3, 2006:A1.
13. University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences. Policy on conflicts of interest and interactions between representatives of certain industries and faculty, staff and students of the schools of the health sciences and personnel employed by UPMC at all domestic locations. http://www.coi.pitt. edu/IndustryRelationships/Policies/IndustryRelationshipsPolicy.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2008.
14. Stanford University School of Medicine. Policy and guidelines for interactions between the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford Hospital and Clinics, and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital with the pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, and hospital and research equipment and supplies industries. http://med.stanford.edu/coi/siip/policy.html. Accessed January 14, 2008.
15. Rauber C. Institutions taking dim view of pharma freebies: centers set rules to discourage taking gifts. San Francisco Business Times. July 13, 2007.
16. Ehringhaus SH, Weissman JS, Sears JL, Goold SD, Feibelmann S, Campbell EG. Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2008;299(6):665-671.
17. Eisenberg RS. Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Va Law Rev. 1996;82(8):1663-1727. doi:10.2307/1073686.
18. Smith L, Byers JF. Gene therapy in the post-Gelsinger era. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul. 2002;4(4):104-110.
19. Moukheiber Z. Science for sale. Forbes. May 17, 1999. http://www.forbes.com//forbes/1999/0517/6310136a.html. Accessed January 10, 2008.
20. US General Accounting Office. Biomedical Research: HHS Direction Needed to Address Financial Conflicts of Interest. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 2001. GAO-02-89.
21. Association of American Universities Task Force on Research Accountability. Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest. http://www.aau.edu/research/COI.01.pdf. Published October 2001. Accessed January 10, 2008.
22. Association of American Medical Colleges Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress II: Principles and Recommendations for Oversight of an Institution's Financial Interests in Human Subjects Research. http://www.aamc.org/research/coi/2002coireport.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2008.
23. Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey: FY 2004. http://www.autm.net/events/File/04AUTMSurveySum-USpublic.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2008.
24. Howard K. Biotechs sue Columbia over fourth Axel patent. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21(9):955-956.
25. National Conference of State Legislatures. Marketing and direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of pharmaceuticals: October 25, 2007. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/rxads.htm. Accessed January 15, 2008.