To accompany Pro Publica's report, a number of news outlets wrote about payments given to local or regional doctors. These included, in semi-random order, the Los Angeles Daily News (via the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin), the Salt Lake (City, Utah) Tribune, the San Jose (California) Mercury News, NewsChannel5 in Nashville, Tennessee, the Pasadena (California) Star-News, the Bergen and Passaic, New Jersey Record Herald via NorthJersey, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.
The combined reports showed that many physicians, including prominent academics and community practitioners, are still getting a lot of money from pharmaceutical firms. Since Pro Publica was only able to get data from some US drug companies, albeit those who accounted for 47 percent of US drug sales, it is likely that many more doctors than those in the data base got such payments, and the doctors in the data base may have gotten more money from companies that do not report their payments. In addition, it is likely that many more doctors get similar payments from medical device companies, health care information technology companies, and other for-profit corporations that promote health care products and services.
We had discussed Pro Publica's initial reporting from its database here. While there is evidence that most payments to doctors by pharmaceutical companies are intended to promote marketing, we discussed here how some doctors rationalized their payments as fully professional and proper.
Now the updated reporting has provided many examples of - not to put too fine a point on it - physicians making dubious excuses for their acceptance of payments, often large, from pharmaceutical companies. Their themes included
It's Education, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
From Pro Publica,
[Dr Rakesh] Jain, of Lake Jackson, Texas, has earned $582,049. [Dr Vladimir] Maletic, of Greer, SC, made $527,850, according to Dollars for Docs.
Jain said he loves teaching and delivers the same lectures about drugs and medical conditions regardless of whether a drug company is paying him.
'I am not a marketer, I am an educator,' Jain said.
Maletic said he speaks about treatments for mood disorders, schizophrenia and sleep-wakefulness disorders because he believes that 'good quality education about pharmaceutical products may be beneficial to both physicians and their patients.'
The LA Times found someone with a similar opinion.
'Pharmaceutical companies used to take doctors to dinner, but that was banned years ago,' said Dr. Arthur Chanzel Jeng, an infection control specialist at UCLA-Olive View Medical Center in Sylmar. 'Now they must provide some educational content.'
Jeng was paid $80,500 by Pfizer last year for several speaking engagements. As an infection control specialist at Olive View, he and others in his field are concerned about drug resistant diseases and the limited number of antibiotics. Drug companies have little incentive to produce new antibiotics, he said, so if they do, physicians in his field want to know more about the drugs. That's why he agrees to speak.
'We (speakers) provide education when a new antibiotic does get released,' he said. 'There needs to be education among doctors on how to use this new antibiotic.'
In addition, the Salt Lake Tribune noted that
[Dr Eliot] Brinton received two of the single largest payments in Utah, both in excess of $85,000, for promoting drugs by GlaxoSmithKline, ProPublica’s database shows. He describes the lectures as educational and based on science.'I love the science and I love to teach. And doctors are glad to better understand the drugs and how to use them. I’m careful not to act as a cheerleader,' he said. 'If I’m a shill for the drug company I lose my integrity and integrity is really all I have to offer my patients and the drug companies.'
The physicians above all asserted that since their activities were "educational," they must be worthwhile.
Note that the ostensibly educational activities described above all appear to be "drug talks," that is talks sponsored by the drug companies, probably through speakers' bureaus, and given probably not as part of formal, accredited continuing medical education. Since the publication of "Dr Drug Rep" in the New York Times in 2007, the public has learned that such talks mainly include content provided by the pharmaceutical companies, and are meant by the companies as marketing exercises. From that case we also learned that physicians who deviate from the marketing message do not last long on speakers' bureaus. (See posts here and here.)
In addition, pharmaceutical companies often pay physicians deemed to be "key opinion leaders," whose opinions are promoted supposedly for their brilliance and erudition. However, as noted here and here, the companies buying their services believe they have bought the services of sales people. Evidence about key opinion leaders actually performing like marketers has come from documents revealed during litigation (e.g., see this recent example of a huge monetary settlement made of charges that GlaxoSmithKline, a major multinational drug company committed fraud among other things, and in the course of its unethical activities used key opinion leaders as marketers). Also, see the Neurontin marketing plan (see post here), and the Lexapro marketing plan (see post here) for examples of how company keaders view key opinion leaders as marketers.
Given the volume of evidence about drug talks, speakers' bureaus, and the marketing purposes of key opinion leaders, the assertion that because they were in some sense educational, these doctors' corporate financed talks were worthwhile is at best a silly excuse.
More formally, it may arise from a logical fallacy. The doctors appeared to be arguing that education is an unalloyed good. However, obviously not all education is good education, or unbiased education. Specifically in this case, logic, and evidence from several cases in which pharmaceutical companies' intentions as documented in communications revealed in litigation (see examples here) suggest that these companies pay physicians for education that they believe serves marketing purposes.Thus the doctors seem to be using the composition fallacy, the logical fallacy that an entire class (in this case, all of education) can be judged by some of its members (examples of unbiased, accurate, good education.)