In defense of industry-physician relationships

American Surgeon

Volumn 76, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 987-994

  Nakayama, Don K ^a,b  

^a MERCER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b MEDICAL CENTER OF CENTRAL GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVICE; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PHYSICIAN; REVIEW; SOCIAL WELFARE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITORIAL; ETHICS; MARKETING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PHARMACEUTICS; PUBLIC RELATIONS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CODES OF ETHICS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MARKETING; PHYSICIANS; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77957353327     PISSN: 00031348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Coyle SL. Ethics and human rights committee, and the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Physician-industry relations. Part I. Individual physicians. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:396-402.
2. Coyle SL. Ethics and human rights committee, and the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Physician-industry relations. Part II. Organizational issues. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:403-6.
3. American Association of Medical Colleges. Industry Funding of Medical Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Medical Colleges, 2008. Available at: http://services.aamc.org/publications/showfile.cfm? file4version114.pdf&prd-id4232. Accessed June 25, 2010.
4. Stanford 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 ("industry"), 2009. Available at: http://med.stanford.edu/ coi/siip/policy.html (Accessed September 14, 2009).
5. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. 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, 2008. Available at: http://www.coi.pitt.edu/ IndustryRelationships/Policies/IndustryRelationshipsPolicy.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
6. Institute of Medicine. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/Conflict-of- Interest-in-Medical-Research-Education-and-Practice/ COI%20report%20brief%20for%20web.ashx. Accessed June 25, 2010.
7. 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;295:429-33. (Pubitemid 43144979)
8. Stell LK. Drug reps off campus! Promoting professional purity by suppressing commercial speech. J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:431-43.
9. Stossel TP. Regulating academic-industrial research relationships - solving problems or stifling progress? N Engl J Med 2005;353:1060-5.
10. Baerlocher MO, Millward SF, Cardella JF. Conflicts of interest in the development of new interventional medical devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:S546-50.
11. Rubin PH. Altruism and self interest in medical decision making. J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:401-9.
12. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-85.
13. Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. Research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
14. The good news. . . and the bad news. The Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2009, p. C6.
15. Arias E, Anderson RN, Kung HC, et al. Deaths: final data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003;52:1-116.
16. Centers for Disease Control. National vital statistics reports. Deaths: Preliminary data for 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/ nvsr58/nvsr58-01.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
17. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Older workers. Are there more older people in the workplace? 2008. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older-workers/ (Accessed September 14, 2009).
18. Fogel RW. Forecasting the cost of U.S. health care in 2040. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no. 14361, issued in September 2008. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14361 (Accessed September 14, 2009).
19. Tsao A. Big pharma's Rx to rise and shine. Business Week, Dec 17, 2004. Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2004/nf20041217- 4477-db016.htm (Accessed September 14, 2009).
20. Gellad ZF, Lyles KW. Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. Am J Med 2007;120:475-80.
21. Health Plan UPMC. UPMC Health Plan earns marketing awards. Available at: http://www.upmchealthplan.com/media/news/2006-08-31.html (Accessed September 14, 2009).
22. Ravitch MM. The great Australian staple caper. Surg Rounds 1990;13:45-81.
23. Angell M. Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. JAMA 2008;300:1069-71.
24. Fins JJ. Surgical innovation and ethical dilemmas: Precautions and proximity. Cleve Clin J Med 2008;75:S7-12.
25. Moore J. Medtronic defends payments to physicians. Star- Tribune.com (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN), August 27, 2009. Available at: http://www. startribune.com/business/55407217.html?page41&c4y (Accessed September 14, 2009).
26. Weber T, John S. U of M surgeon defends work with Medtronic. MPRnewsQ (Minnesota Public Radio), July 31, 2009. Available at: http://minnesota. publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/31/polly-responds/. Accessed June 25, 2010.
27. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/ files/PhRMA%20Marketing%20Code%202008.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
28. Kassirer JP. Commercialism and medicine: an overview. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2007;16:377-86, discussion 439-42.
29. Churchill LR. The hegemony of money: commercialism and professionalism in American medicine. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2007;16:407-14, discussion 439-42.
30. Adair RF, Holmgren LR. Do drug samples influence resident prescribing behavior? A randomized trial. Am J Med 2005;118:881-4.
31. Lichter PR. Debunking myths in physician-industry conflicts of interest. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;146:159-71. Epub June 6, 2008.
32. Cervero RM, He J. The relationship between commercial support and bias in continuing medical education activities: a review of the literature. Available at: http://www.accme.org/dir-docs/doc-upload/aae6ecc3-ae64-40c0-99c6- 4c4c0c3b23ec-uploaddocument.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
33. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. The moral foundation of medical leadership: the professional virtues of the physician as fiduciary of the patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:875-9, discussion 879-80.
34. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p 430.
35. American Medical Association. What you should know about gifts to physicians from industry. Module 1: Overview of ethical, professional, and legal issues. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/437/ama-m1.ppt (Accessed September 14, 2009).
36. Glannon W, Ross LF. Are doctors altruistic? J Med Ethics 2002;28:68-9.
37. Hui EC. Doctors as fiduciaries: a legal construct of the patient-physician relationship. Hong Kong Med J 2005;11:527-9.
38. Carlin TM. Doctors as fiduciaries - revisiting the past with an eye on the future. J Law Med 2001;9:95-104.
39. Marissa A, Hendrickson MD. Pay for performance and medical professionalism. Qual Manag Health Care 2008;17:9-18.
40. Nakayama DK, Thompson WM,Wynne JL, et al. The effect of ACGME duty hour restrictions on operative continuity of care. Am Surg 2009;75:1234-7.
41. McCullough LB. Taking the history ofmedical ethics seriously in teaching medical professionalism. Am J Bioeth 2004;4:13-4.
42. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 105 CMR 970.000: Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer conduct. 2009. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/ Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr970.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
43. State of Vermont, Office of the Attorney General. Disclosures of marketing expenditures for prescription drugs, biological products and medical devices. 2009. Available at: http://www.atg.state.vt.us/issues/pharmaceutical- manufacturer-payment-disclosure.php (Accessed September 14, 2009).
44. American College of Surgeons. Statement on guidelines for collaboration of industry and surgical organizations in support of continuing education. 2009. Available at: http://www.facs.org/fellows-info/statements/st-36.html (Accessed September 14, 2009).
45. Wanless D. Securing our future health: taking a long-term view. Final report, 2002, pp 156-7. Available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult- wanless-index.htm. (Accessed September 14, 2009).
46. House of Commons Health Committee. The use of new medical technologies within the NHS. Fifth report of session 2004-05. Volume I, 2005, pp 11-3. Available at: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/ cmselect/cmhealth/398/398i.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2009).
47. Darwall R. Government medicine vs. the elderly. The Wall Street Journal, Sept 15 2009. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052970203917304574412680569936844.html?mod4sphere-ts&mod4sphere- wd (Accessed September 16, 2009).