This was the year that Pharma disclosed the names and payments of their physician consultants. Look here for physicians speaking and consulting with Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Pfizer.
Physician disclosure of conflict is important. It helps put a physician’s opinion and point of view into a context. Disclosure has long been the standard in the academic world. This represents the first time that such information has been made available to the general public.
But how will patients use this information and how will it affect care and outcomes? Should patients flatly avoid physicians or others who have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company? And should patients routinely screen physicians for conflict?
I don’t know the answer to these questions. I’m not sure patients know the answer to these questions. I suspect patients may not like the idea but would be willing to overlook a pharma connection when the reputation of the physician is impeccable.
Transparency is all the rage. Expect more. But I’m wondering how the average health consumer will practically process the information.
{ 4 comments }
Transparency to other docs, hospitals, associations, payers, etc may generate as much if not more fall out than with patients… Very few patients are likely to change doc because of a pharma sponsorship. It would take a great deal of coordination by patients to send a 'message' to doctors.
Agreed, Paulo. Probably a bigger issue for peers than patients. But I still wonder how this information will be processed. Will hospitals reprimand staff for involvement? Can medical staff members receive disciplinary action for associating with industry? It's so hard to see how this information is actionable. But time will tell.
very interesting. although i have no speaking arrangements with pharma companies, and consider this practice a little iffy, i can see how a physician passionate about a certain treatment/medication would want to promote and educate… why not accept limited compensation for working?
While I favor transparancy, the flood of disclosures diminishes their impact. They are all over our medical journals and at our medical conferences. They are so omnipresent, that we expect them and don't pay much attention to them. Of course, just because a speaker or an author discloses something, doesn't mean that the presentation isn't tainted. Do we listen carefully to the flight attendants' warning given out at the start of the flight? It has become a pro forma speech (or recording) that most of us ignore. http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com