How Institutional Conflicts of Interest Exacerbate the Anechoic Effect - the Example of ASCO Fearing "Biting the Hand that Feeds You"

As we recently discussed (here, here, here and here), in May, 2015, the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the world's foremost medical journal, published an editorial and a three-part commentary arguing that current concerns about the effects of financial conflicts of interest (COI) on health care are overblown(1-4).  On June 1, the Wall Street Journal published a report on the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that provided a vivid example of why these concerns should not be dismissed.

Questioning Drug Prices at the ASCO Meeting

The main issue in the article was:

In a sign of growing frustration with rising drug prices, a prominent cancer specialist on Sunday sharply criticized the costs of new cancer treatments in a high-profile speech at one of the largest annual medical meetings in the U.S.

'These drugs cost too much,' Leonard Saltz, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said in a speech heard by thousands of doctors here for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The notion that health care prices are high and are rising continuously in the US should hardly be novel for regular Health Care Renewal readers.  We have been writing about it for a while, starting in 2005.

We first posted about high drug prices in July, 2005, with the example of BilDil.  This was a brand-name combination drug that included two compounds that were already cheaply available in generic form, advertised as a uniquely convenient therapy for congestive heart failure.  We were aghast that the price of the combination drug might be $5.40 - $10.80 a day (in 2005 dollars), over three times the cost of the two drugs in generic form.

But only a few days later we noted that three cancer costs had yearly costs in the five figures, and one, Erbitux, cost as much as $100,000.  Most amazingly we noted that Thalidomid was priced at $25,000  a year.  Yet it was just the infamous thalidomide, the drug initially marketed as a tranquilizer that caused severe birth defects after it was initially sold in Europe.  The drug was still available in generic form in South America for about seven cents a pill.

Since then, the ridiculously high prices of many tests and treatments, but most notably new drugs and devices, has been so widely covered our discussion has been limited to special cases.   For example, consider just a few headlines from April to May, 2015.

How Much Would You Pay for an Old Drug? If You Have MS, a Fortune (Bloomberg)

Pharmaceutical Companies Buy Rivals' Drugs, Then Jack Up the Prices (WSJ)

How Marketing Exclusivity Led to Higher Drug Costs and Questionable Benefits (WSJ)

Runaway Drug Prices (NY Times)


Drug Prices as a Taboo Topic

However, despite this wide attention to the problem, the speech at ASCO was notable.  Back to the WSJ...

Dr. Saltz’s speech was unusual because it was made at the meeting’s plenary session, where the field’s most significant scientific research is presented and which all meeting participants are expected to attend. An estimated 25,000 doctors and scientists attended this year’s meeting.

One would think that the high price of drugs, especially cancer drugs, would be a fit subject for discussion at a plenary session of ASCO, however,

It is unprecedented for plenary speeches, which typically address scientific and medical issues, to substantially take on the topic of drug costs, said Alan Venook, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco who planned the meeting’s scientific session and invited Dr. Saltz to speak.

The prominent venue for the speech was also unusual because, like many medical meetings, ASCO is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and often focuses on highlighting advancements in drug development, said Dr. Venook. He said discussing drug prices there is 'uncomfortable' because it could be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds you.'

Doctors are also reluctant to antagonize the drug industry because they need pharmaceutical firms to invest in developing new medicines for patients, he said.

'It’s a tough balancing act for ASCO where the meeting is largely funded by pharma,' Dr. Venook said in an interview. 'You can’t have a [plenary] talk trashing pharma, but you can have a talk by a respected person questioning it.'

So because pharma gives ASCO a lot of money, at best, only the most distinguished ASCO members can gently question pharma, but cannot criticize, much less "trash" the source of their mammon.


This is thus a succinct example of why financial conflicts of interest in medicine and health care can be bad.  The incredibly high prices of cancer drugs should be a fit topic for discussion at a meeting run by a society of medical oncologists.  But those in charge of the meeting and the society are afraid to initiate such a discussion, and even more afraid of appearing to criticize the companies that charge these prices, because the society has become dependent on money from these very same companies.  So this is further an example of how conflicts of interest can create the anechoic effect - the notion that certain topics in medicine and health care are taboo, because discussing them might trouble the powers that be, and particularly the moneyed interests that now dominate medicine and health care. 

In a succinct response to the NEJM series (1-4) soft pedaling concerns about conflicts of interest, the British Medical Journal ran a commentary by a former NEJM national correspondent, and two former NEJM editors.(5)  It stated,

The NEJM has now sought to reinterpret and downplay the importance of conflicts of interest in medicine by publishing articles that show little understanding of the meaning of the term. The concern is not whether physicians and researchers who receive industry money have been bought by the drug companies, as Drazen writes, or whether members of guideline panels or advisory committees to the US Food and Drug Administration with ties to industry make recommendations that are motivated by a desire for financial gain, as Rosenbaum writes. The essential issue is that it is impossible for editors and readers to know one way or the other.

In this case, we seem not to be talking about the possibility that health care professionals "have been bought by the drug companies,"  but how drug companies essentially "buying" a professional organization has apparently heretofore prevented medical professionals from discussing a vital issue that could have major effects on patients.

Following the Money

In case there is any question about the money involved and its sources, one only needs to go to some publicly available in formation supplied by ASCO (mostly because of reporting requirements imposed on all US non-profit organizations of a certain size).  

The latest (2014) annual report from ASCO reveals that the organization only gets 16.1% of its revenue from member dues.  Thus a ostensible membership organization gets only about a sixth of its funding from members' dues.

Yet the organization has become quite wealthy.  Its most recent (2013) US Internal Revenue Service 990 Form reveals that it owns over $55 million in real estate, and has over $104 million in investments (presumably as an endowment.)  The organizations' leaders are also doing very well. Its CEO, Allen Lichter MD, got $804,775 in total compensation in 2012.  Eleven other managers, of which three are health care professionals (one MD, one RN, one PharmD), got at least $220,000 in total compensation.  Five of them got more than $300,000. 

The source of all that money seems mainly to be pharmaceutical and other health care corporations that sell goods and services for cancer care.  US non-profit organizations are not forced by law to reveal the details of their financial support.  However, the ASCO annual report does list 23 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and one for-profit cancer hospital chain as contributing at least $1 million each in total to the non-profit over time.  The report lists 37 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies as current corporate donors, and also 10 other for-profit health care related corporations as current corporate donors.

In addition to these apparently marked institutional conflicts of interest, ASCO leaders may have their own individual conflicts of interest.  I do not have the resources to search all relationships affecting meeting organizers and ASCO officers and trustees, and the organization does not post conflicts of interest affecting its leadership and governance in a prominent place. However, Dr Alan Venook, who confessed to his discomfort about inviting a talk that might be perceived as biting the hand that feeds the finances of ASCO, is or has been on advisory boards for Thershold Pharmaceuticals,  Mirna Therapeutics, and GlobeImmune.  For a 2014 presentation, he gave the following disclosures: "Research support from Genentech/Roche, BMS, Lilly, Novartis; H. Lenz: Consulting, advisory boards and research support from Genentech/Roche, BMS and Merck."  Furthermore, the current chair of the ASCO Board of Directors, Julie M Vose, MD, is also on the Medical Advisory Board of EmergingMed Inc, and the Clinical Advisory Board of Bullet Biotechnology.

Summary

The New England Journal of Medicine recently launched a counter-attack against the "pharmascolds" who are allegedly slowing the pace of medical progress by their excessive and puritanical concerns about financial conflicts of interest.  Yet the arguments that COIs could be bad for health care are logical, and based on at least some reasonably good evidence.  (See the article by Steinbrook et al in the BMJ mentioned above[4], the accompanying BMJ editorial[5] just to start and then the 2009 Institute of Medicine report.)

Moreover, we have encountered a lot of vivid cases suggesting that conflicts of interest can have adverse influences on health care.  In this most recent one, we see at least one prominent if conflicted organizational insider admitting that institutional, and perhaps individual conflicts of interest have made discussion of at least one big health care and health care policy topic taboo.  This seems to corroborate our previous discussion that the anechoic effect - that certain topics in health care are taboo - may be generated by conflicts of interest of the people who ought to discuss them, or of those to whom those people may have to answer.

True health care reform requires full disclosure of conflicts of interest for honesty's sake, and marked reduction of conflicts affecting those who make health care decisions on behalf of individual patients, and health care policy decisions that affect patients' and the public's health.  If we allow conflicts of interest to continue, we will have difficulty even discussing the most severe problems affecting health care, because those generating the topics are benefiting from the circumstances that enable such problems.

ADDENDUM (1 July, 2015) - This post was republished on 28 June, 2015, on the Naked Capitalism blog. 

ADDENDUM (20 July, 2015 ) - This post was republished on July 12, 2015 in OpenHealth News.

References

  1.Drazen JM.  Revisiting the commercial-academic interface.  N Eng J Med 2015; ; 372:1853-1854. Link here.
2. Rosenbaum L.  Reconnecting the dots - reinterpreting industry-physician relations.  N Eng J Med 2015; 372:1860-1864.  Link here.
3. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias - the case for careful study.  N Engl J Med 2015;  372:1959-1963.  Link here.
4.  Rosenbaum L.  Beyond moral outrage - weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2064-2068.  Link here.
5. Steinbrook R, Kassirer JP, Angell M.  Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea.  Brit Med J 2015; 350: h2942.  Link here. 
6. Loder E. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals.  Brit Med J 2015; 350: h2957.  Link here.

BLOGSCAN - An Ex-Pharmaceutical Company CEO to Run the American College of Cardiology?

Marilyn Mann's blog discussed the appointment of a former pharmaceutical company executive, most recently at Actelion, and previously at Hoffman La Roche, Abbott Canada, Nordic Labs and Marion Merrill Dow (now known as Aventis), as president of the American College of Cardiology.  Although Mr Jacobovitz, who boasts a bachelor's degree in biology but no obvious experience in direct health care or biomedical science, was touted by the ACC as having "developed a strong patient- and customer-centered corporate strategy," Ms Mann provided documentation that his trajectory at Actelion seemed more money- than patient-centered.  

During his watch, Actelion was cited for not reporting 3500 deaths of patients taking two of its drugs to the US Food an Drug Administration (FDA).  Actelion blocked availability of samples of one of its drugs to generic drug companies, an action that the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged violated anti-trust laws.  Actelion purchased a company that was working on a drug that could have become a competitor to Actelion's most remunerative product, and then shut down development, possibly preventing a drug that might help patients from reaching them.  Finally, Acetelion's marketing practices seem to be currently under investigation by a US Attorney.   

One wonders why cardiologists would want such an individual representing them as leader of their premier organization? 

(Dr Wes wondered as well.)

Logical Fallacies in Defense of the European Society of Cardiology's Lenient Approach to Conflicts of Interest

The European Society of Cardiology just published its recommendations for interactions between medical societies and industry.(1)   The report emphasized the supposed benefits of industry relationships and funding, and suggested few restrictions on current practices.  Like other defenses of leniency towards conflicts of interest, its arguments seemed to rest on a series of logical fallacies.  

Wonderful "Innovations ... Through Productive Collaboration" - Appeal to Belief and the Fallacy of Division

The report made several arguments about the benefits of professional - industrial interaction.  These included:

In recent decades, cardiology has been a fast-moving medical speciality. Many advances have come from basic and clinical research conducted by universities and by pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Innovations have been realized in part through productive collaborations between clinicians, academia, and industry. Such links are essential and need to be encouraged and supported by appropriate investment if medical progress is to be sustained.

The notion that interactions between physicians and industry is a source, perhaps the most important source of wonderful "innovations" is often used to justify the sorts of interactions, involving payments by industry to academia and physicians, that are now prevalent. In this report, this first appears as an assertion without any evidence to justify it.

Later, the report noted:

The Association of American Medical Colleges has stated that there are benefits from effective partnerships between industry and academic medical centres.

This statement came with a citation, to a 2008 report entitled "Industry Funding of Medical Education."(2) This AAMC report, in turn, contained many similar assertions, e.g.,

An effective and principled partnership between academic medical centers and various health industries is critical in order to realize fully the benefits of biomedical research and ensure continued advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease.

However, the AAMC report also failed to cite any evidence in support of these assertions.

There are two major problems with these assertions, which form the foundations of both reports. The first is they do not seem to have a clear evidence base.

While the notion that current research efforts marked by substantial interaction between physicians, academia and industry are producing wonderful innovations is appealing, what evidence there is suggests that clinically important innovation is rare. For example, I quote a 2009 review of global drug discovery by Light(3) on whether new drugs represent advances over older treatments:

the best evidence of clinical quality comes from systematic efforts to assess therapeutic advantage and adverse effects compared with existing drugs. A detailed analysis of therapeutic quality in new drugs over the past twenty years found that 14 percent of all new chemical entities are either therapeutic breakthroughs or substantially superior to existing medications. Likewise, a comprehensive review of all new drugs approved between 1989 and 2000 in the United States concluded that 14.8 percent were new chemical entities that provided significant clinical improvement, and a Canadian review board concluded that 10.7 percent of new chemical entities in 2000–2004 did so.

Thus while many new drugs are introduced, only a few introduced recently were chemically unique or had effects different than older treatments.  I would argue that most of these will prove not to be truly clinically innovative, in that good clinical research will not show that they produce substantial improvements in clinical outcomes without major adverse effects for a good number of patients with not uncommon problems.  (It is not hard to think of really important innovations developed before the era of major industry-academic-physician interactions: antisepsis for surgery, anesthesia for surgery, antibiotics, hormone replacement therapy with insulin, thyroid hormone, etc, smallpox vaccination, polio vaccination, etc, etc)  However, it is actually very hard to think of more than a handful of new drugs or devices discovered in the last 20 years which were that hugely innovative.  (The closest might be multi anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV, and Gleevec for chronic myelogenous leukemia.)  If there has been very little really important innovation in the last 20 plus year era of enhanced industry-academic-physician interactions, these collaborations could not have produced tremendous innovation. 

So the report's arguments rests on an assertion that is not clearly justified, and which appears to be at best a huge exaggeration. Resting an argument on a belief that is not further supported by evidence amounts to a obvious logical fallacy.  It is an appeal to belief.

Furthermore, while both reports emphasize physician-industry collaboration or interaction, there are many ways interaction or collaboration can occur without involving substantial payments by the latter to the former. It is possible for two people or organizations to work together without one paying the other.  Yet both reports use the broad assertions about interaction and collaboration to justify interactions and collaborations in which industry makes substantial payments to physicians or academic institutions. This appears to be an example of the fallacy of division, that is, an unjustified assertion that "what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents."

CME Would Wither if Financing Were Reduced, and Industry is the Only Possible Source of Such Money - A Slippery Slope and a False Dilemma

The ESC report made the argument that without industry funding, CME would wither. For example,

Should Europe choose to follow the strategy proposed in the USA, severing links between industry and medical societies, CME could be severely compromised. Relying completely on public funding is not a viable option for Europe at the moment. The removal of industry support for medical associations would be followed by increased fees and reduced attendance at congresses especially by clinical trainees and young fellows. It is the view of the ESC that in the absence of alternative funding, or until alternative funding is identified, maintaining links with industry is appropriate....

The argument is that CME would fail if financial support for it would be reduced, and that industry is the only possible source of financial support at the current level. The notion that CME must inevitably fail if financing of it were reduced is a slippery slope fallacy, that is, a statement that a inevitably causes b when such inevitability is not proven. Why could not adequate CME be done at a lower cost, even if the result were less luxurious? Furthermore, the notion that industry is the only source of funding is a false dilemma fallacy. In fact, there are other possibly sources of funding. Given that physicians are among the world's best paid professionals, why could they not pay for their own CME?

"Conflicts of Interest are Unavoidable and ... They Cannot Be Abolished" - False Dilemma

The third major argument on which the report bases its recommendations is encapsulated above, and was buttressed by:

The risk of bias in medical education is not restricted to activities that are supported by industry. It can affect any type of scientific communication, even an educational meeting organized independently by a university or medical association.

Underlying these assertions seem to be extremely broad definitions of bias and conflicts of interest, coupled with unwillingness to see a distinction between trivial and serious varieties of each. This again appears to be a false dilemma. The distinctions should be between no conflicts, trivial conflicts, and serious conflicts, not between no conflicts and any conflicts, even if trivial.  This also could be called an example of how "the perfect is the enemy of the good."  Even if perfectly preventing all conflicts of interest is impossible, does this imply that preventing serious conflicts of interest is not worthwhile.   

Summary

We have noted that logical fallacies are increasingly deployed to defend the status quo in health care, and particularly to defend the interests of those who are profiting the most from the current dysfunctional system.  We have noted that several defenses of the conflicts of interest generated by financial relationships between physicians and medical academics on one hand and commercial health care firms on the other, were based on logical fallacies.  (See examples here, here,  here, and here.)  I have yet to see a coherent, logical, fact-based argument that the benefits for patients' and the public's health of physicians and medical academics working part-time as consultants, advisers, speakers, and directors of health care corporations outweigh the obvious risks of biasing medical decision making, education and research in favor of vested interests.

So we add to our ongoing series how, based on a series of logical fallacies, the European Society of Cardiology provided a series of recommendations that allowed nearly any kind of relationship among CME speakers and selection committees and industry, as long as the relationships were disclosed.  The only relationships banned were those "which would represent a significant conflict of interest" for the Chairperson of a Congress Programme Committee.  Similarly, the only stipulations for the society's cardiology journals were that interests affecting editors and editorial board members must be declared, and board members and reviewers should decline reviews of manuscripts "relating to topics, drugs, or devices, in which they have significant commercial of academic interests."  The rules for guideline committees were somewhat more rigorous, but "receipt of consultancy fees or fees for lecturing would not debar an individual from being a member of a committee but must be fully disclosed."

It is discouraging that the web of conflicts of interest that currently enmeshes much of academic medicine and many medical professionals is so heavily defended.  It is more discouraging that its defenders include so many prominent academics and practicing physicians.  It is more discouraging that so many well trained people resort to logical fallacies to make their arguments, and do so in prestigious scholarly journals.

Our continuing series about how logical fallacies are used to support the status quo and the powers that be in health care suggests, if nothing else, that health care professional education ought to include courses in logic.

Finally,  in 2011, I noted, "I have also yet to see an argument in favor of conflicts of interest made by anyone who does not have such conflicts."At least, however, up to that point I had not noted any such arguments made by people who had much power to enforce their views, as opposed to the ability to just express them.  Last month, however, I discussed how the leader of one of the most acclaimed US medical schools made an argument in support of conflicts of interest based on logical fallacies,  Now we have just seen such arguments made by the leaders of European cardiology.  The new paper suggested that disclosure is the best way to manage conflicts of interest.  True to this belief, the paper included a disclosure section that took up an entire journal page.

It seems likely that number and magnitude of ongoing commercial interests so disclosed may have influenced the content of the position paper.  Yet while it may be unsurprising, it is most disappointing that conflicts of interest are now being uncritically and illogically publicly defended by people in positions to exert so much influence on health care.

The noted cognitive psychologists George Loewenstein, Sunita Sah, and Daylian Cain just asserted in JAMA(4):

Conflicts of interest, including fee-for-service arrangements, are at the heart of the astronomical increases in health care costs in the United States, and transparency is not substitute for more substantive reform.

True health care reform requires such substantive reform of the financial arrangements among corporations that sell health care services or products and health care professionals, others who make decisions about patients' or the public's health, and academic health care institutions. To decide how to accomplish such reform, we need a better discussion informed by logic and evidence, sans logical fallacies. Those who lead health care ought to be able to participate in this discussion under these conditions.

References
1. ESC Board. Relations between professional medical associations and the health-care industry, concerning scientific communication and continuing medical education. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 666-674. Link here.
2. Association of Americian Medical Colleges. Industry Funding of Medical Education. Washington, DC: AAMC, 2008. Link here.
3. Light DW. Global drug discovery: Europe is ahead. Health Aff 2009; 28: w969-w977. Link here.
4. Loewenstein G, Sah S, Cain DM. The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA 2012; 307: 669-670. Link here.

Medical Societies Paid To Do Corporate Public Relations

Background

Last year we posted about how two medical societies which received funding from a drug manufacturer tried to persuade the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to deny approval of a generic competitor to one of that company's products.  The medical societies were the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) and the North American Thrombosis Forum (NATF).  The company was Sanofi-Aventis and the product involved was its anti-coagulant derivative of heparin, Lovenox. 

At the time, we noted that the SHM CEO denied the need to specifically disclose funding from Sanofi-Aventis in the letter to the FDA, since he asserted the letter was about "providing the best, most effective care to the hospitalized patient." If so, I wondered why the SHM had not raised concerns about the case of the deadly contaminated heparin which was sold by another company from which it received support.  I noted that as long as medical societies accepted money from companies that made drugs or devices their members might prescribe or use, there would be "suspicion that such societies may use their considerable influence to serve the corporations', not patients' interests, and so undermine the professional values of the societies' members."

The Senate Report

Now the US Senate Finance Committee has reported on their investigation of this incident, and the concerns it raises go beyond just suspicions.  As reported by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal,

The Senate report, 'Sanofi's Strategic Use of Third Parties to Influence the FDA,' said the company enlisted medical experts to conduct 'independent interaction' with the FDA to hold on to Lovenox's market.

Between 2007 and 2010, the company contributed more than $2.6 million to the Society of Hospital Medicine; more than $2.3 million to the North American Thrombosis Foundation, which studies blood clots; and more than $260,000 to Dr. Tapson, the report said.

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, said: 'Pharmaceutical companies simply cannot be allowed to spend millions of dollars to buy medical opinions that claim objectivity but instead favor their products.'

The Society of Hospital Medicine was initially reluctant to write the letter, according to emails released by the committee. The society's director told Sanofi in a June 2008 email that his group 'has no history of making similar comments to the FDA' and might not have 'the expertise or knowledge to say much about' the issue.

However, the email added, 'we want to give any issue that is important to our partner careful consideration.'

Two months later, the society sent its letter to the FDA. A Sanofi public-relations representative later cited the letter in an internal email as a 'key accomplishment.'

The report itself made clear why Sanofi wanted the FDA to delay or deny approval of the generic version of Lovenox:

According to a 2009 Sanofi slide presentation on its 'Lovenox Patient Safety Strategy,' a core issue faced by Sanofi was the 'imminent threat to [Sanofi’s] Lovenox franchise' posed by 'generic alternatives.'

It also made clear how much financial impact Sanofi had on the SHM:

SHM received $2,675,850 from Sanofi from January 2007 through August 11, 2010 for conference exhibits, sponsorship, and grants. Sanofi’s payments to SHM totaled $1,132,500 between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009, accounting for 8 percent of SHM’s total revenue during those 2 years.

It made clear that the letter the SHM wrote to the FDA resulted from its interactions with Sanofi:

Internal Sanofi communications indicate that SHM consulted with the American College of Chest Physicians and Dr. Tapson about sending a letter to the FDA after 'a very positive meeting' with Sanofi officials.

Summary

So let us just walk through this again. Sanofi wanted to keep generic Lovenox off the market. Sanofi pushed two medical societies to which it provided considerable funding to try to persuade the FDA not to approve generic Lovenox, without revealing their financial ties to Sanofi or that Sanofi had instigated their protests. At the time, at least one of the societies' leaders denied that its attempt to persuade the FDA had anything to do with its relationship to Sanofi.

Note that Sanofi's use of two medical societies and a "key opinion leader" to try to influence public policy without disclosing the company's causal role was an example of what Wendell Potter called a "third-party" tactic (see this post).  While Mr Potter outlined a series of tactics used by public relations department of health insurance corporations to further their policy objectives, often in such deceptive and systematic ways as to constitute disinformation campaigns, there has not been such a broad description of these these tactics used by other kinds of health care organizations.  Now it looks like drug companies' PR departments are also users of these techniques.  Most likely they have been deployed throughout the health care sphere to promote policies that benefit particular companies, often at the expense of health care professionals, patients, or the public at large.

On a personal note, I am a general internist who spent some time as an academic hospitalist.  The SHM is the main society for hospitalists, and is allied with the Society for General Internal Medicine (e.g., see here), to which I belong, and which I have served in a variety of capacities.  Thus I am very sad about the hole into which the SHM leadership has apparently fallen. 

The SHM and NATF leadership have apparently become stealth health policy advocates, and actively tried to change government policy on behalf of a corporation that had funded them.  Thus, these medical societies acted more like public relations or lobbying firms.  In doing so, they appeared to subverted their own missions, and their members' values.

A short time ago, we noted the cases of two medical societies that got substantial funding from drug and device companies, and thus seemed to function more like marketing firms that professional associations.  Now we have two cases of medical societies that seemed to function more like public relations and lobbying firms than professional associations.

So all the organizations which ought to have upheld health care professionals' values against the onslaught of laissez faire commercialized medicine, now medical societies as well as academic medical centers, medical schools and their parent universities, and medical and health care foundations, seem to have been systematically sold out to big health care corporations' marketers and public relations flacks. 

What Is To Be Done?

If we health care professionals really want to improve patient care and the public health, we could start by exercising extreme skepticism about the funding and leadership intentions of our own professional associations.  If these societies appear as dependent on industry for money as they are dependent on their own members, and/or if they appear to be acting more like marketing, public relations or lobbying firms, why do we continue to enable such behavior?  Why should we pay dues to marketing, public relations or lobbying firms?  We need to have our medical societies uphold their own missions, or we need to get new medical societies. 

Hat tip to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) blog.

More Medical Societies Supported by Industry

There were several new reports about the extent that medical societies are supported by industry.  Last week we asked whether the extent of the industrial support provided the Heart Rhythm Society made that organization appear to be more of a marketing firm than a professional society. 

Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)

ProPublica reported last week:

The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) received 57 percent of its revenues in 2009 from medical device and pharmaceutical makers, according to financial information on the group's website.

Industry contributions to the society's budget covered $4.7 million of the $8.2 million it received that year.

The group's biggest funders are the companies with the biggest share of the stent market: Cordis Corp. (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories and Medtronic.

So here is another medical society that gets more money from pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies than it does from its members.

The SCAI does not make obvious any relationships among its board members and officers and industry and does make publicly accessible its CEO's compensation or its recent 990 forms (see its web-site here).


National Lipid Association (NLA)

The CardioBrief blog discussed the somewhat more convoluted case of the sources of support of the National Lipid Association.

First blogger Larry Husten examined the role of industry support for the association's "clinical guidance papers" on familial hypercholesterolemia  (FH). These papers recommended extremely aggressive screening for high cholesterol, that is, starting for 9 year old children, and 2 year olds whose families' had histories of elevated cholesterol and coronary disease. The conference that came up with these ideas was supported by drug companies, per the first blog post in a three-part series:

The January 2011 NLA familial hypercholesterolemia recommendations conference was supported by unrestricted grant funding from the following companies: Abbott Laboratories, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genzyme, Kaneka Pharma America LLC, and Merck & Co.

Also,

Each of these companies would benefit from increased screening and treatment of FH and some, such as Keneka, Aegerion, and Genzyme have a huge portion of their future invested in FH.

Furthermore,

The executive summary of the papers includes disclosures from all of the authors, and all the authors list industry ties, and all but two of the authors disclose multiple relationships with industry (see below). Nearly all had ties with the companies that sponsored the conference. In an interview, [chair of the expert panel Dr Anne] Goldberg, told me that 'we believe in transparency' but that, unlike organizations like the ACC and the AHA, 'we have not taken people off of committees because of any ties with industry.'

A second blog post noted that a brochure on FH published by the NLA was supported by a drug company (Genzyme) and that:

The NLA offers a multitude of CME programs, nearly all of which are  commercially supported by the pharmaceutical industry. Often the content of the programs are closely tied to the interests of the sponsor. For instance, the program on 'Lipid-Altering Drug Pharmacology and Safety' is supported by Abbott, Merck/Schering-Plough, and Reliant, all of whom manufacture popular lipid drugs.

However, in pursuit of the "transparency" promised above, Mr Husten was not able to get a clear idea of the total amount of industry support supplied to the NLA:

the NLA does not provide a detailed account of its revenue from industry, so it is impossible to say with certainty precisely how reliant it is upon industry support.

Note that the association's 2010 990 form listed revenues totaling $3,657,060, of which $1,106,091 came from meeting registration, and $216,356 from dues.  So this society received about 36% of its revenue from these traditional sources, while it received 37% from contributions and grants ($1,246,242) plus $116,750 in exhibitor fees.  (Other sources of revenue were less easy to classify.)  This suggests that the NLA does receive substantial revenue from industry.

The NLA did not list amongst its disclosures whether its board members and officers had their own financial relationships with industry.

Furthermore, the NLA seems particularly opaque about its hired executives and how much they are paid. Its 2010 990 form did not name its highest-compensated employees, nor list their compensation. Although it noted that its management was "delegated" to Compass Management & Consulting, it did not state the amount paid to Compass,  or the compensation given to any Compass employees who are effectively the NLA's highest-paid employees, nor did it list Compass as one of its most highly-paid independent contractors. Mr Husten discovered an addendum to a 2010 financial report also posted on the web that did state Compass' compensation was $662,640 in "management fees," and $326,378 for "commissions" for "fund-raising, a total of $989,018, equal to 25% of the organization's total expenses of $3,945,688.

Summary

Here are two more examples of medical societies that receive substantial revenues from companies that make products about which the societies' members may decide to prescribe or implant. In both cases, the societies' seemed to receive at least as much revenue from industry as they did  from members for dues, registration fees, and the like. Although both societies claimed to value transparency, neither disclosed the extent that society leaders and paid managers benefited from the societies' or their own relationships with industry.  So there is reason to be concerned about the extent their volunteer leaders and paid executives may benefit from the soceities' and their own personal relationships with industry.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.  So it does not appear unreasonable to ask whether these societies should be regarded as at least as beholden to their industrial funders as to their members and meeting attendees?  So should they be regarded as commercial marketing firms at least as much as professional societies?

As we said before, if medical societies have come to resemble marketing firms, is it any wonder that they have not spoken up against the commercialization of health care, even when the result has not been good for physicians' core values? But in that case, why would physicians who care about their patients and their core values want to belong and pay dues to marketing firms? Inquiring minds want to know....


Maybe physicians should only join medical societies that really act like medical societies.

Has the Heart Rhythm Society Become More Like a Marketing Firm?

ProPublica's and USA Today's joint investigation of one medical society's ties to industry has created a stir.  (The full ProPublica version is here.)  It's worth doing a little reading between the lines to see its further implications.

The Basic Story

The story focused first on the annual meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), a sub-specialized medical society for cardiologists who specialize in electrical or rhythm disorders.  The meeting seemingly has become a giant marketing opportunity, supported by $5 million in industry money, in which practically every flat surface became a medium for advertising.  (The ProPublica article included multiple pictures of branded items from carpets in the exhibit halls to the backs of the seats in shuttle buses.) Also,

St. Jude Medical adorns every hotel key card. Medtronic ads are splashed on buses, banners and the stairs underfoot. Logos splay across shuttle bus headrests, carpets and cellphone-charging stations.

At night, a drug firm gets the last word: A promo for the heart drug Multaq stood on each doctor’s nightstand Wednesday.

Then reporters Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber looked at the HRS as a whole, noting that half the society's total income comes from industry, and "Twelve of 18 directors are paid speakers or consultants for the companies, one holds stock, and the outgoing president disclosed research ties, according to the society’s website, which does not specify how much they receive."  Furthermore, "Two of the society’s biggest funders — Boston Scientific and St. Jude Medical — have paid millions since 2009 to settle federal allegations that they improperly paid kickbacks to unidentified physicians to use their cardiac devices. Neither company admitted wrongdoing."

The article raised tantalizing questions and implied others, but despite the reporters' best attempts, leaders of the HRS and their defenders failed to address them.  Their failure to grapple with the real issues is to me the most disturbing part of the story.

Why Take the Money?

ProPublica published a companion piece consisting of questions to and responses from the HRS President, Dr Douglas L Packer, and President-Elect, Dr Bruce L Wilkoff. The first response was the rationale for taking the money:

Advances in electrophysiology depend on a collaborative relationship between physicians and industry....

Later,

It is imperative that we interact with industry to develop better therapies and test them thoroughly in rigorous clinical trials.

This response is very common from physicians and other health professionals defending relationships with industry. Note that this response, similar to previous ones, is off the point. The issue is not all relationships with industry. It is about relationships in which industry pays people, or in this case, a group of people for purposes not always clear, but when clear are related to marketing. Payments from industry to physicians and health professionals are not necessary for collaboration. If the goal is innovation and development of therapies, how is that supported by payments to a medical society to provide marketing opportunities?

Why Subject the Meeting Attendees to All That Advertising?

Much of the money received by the society was obviously for marketing purposes. The effect of these payments was the advertising barrage noted above. So the obvious questions are: is it beneficial for the society to expose its members and other meeting attendees to all this marketing?  Should making its members accessible to marketing be a major part of the society's activities?

When questioned by ProPublica, the organization's leadership evaded:

Q. Items at your conference—from key cards to newspaper wraps—are available for sponsorships. What is the purpose of these sponsorships? Does the livelihood of the organization depend on them? Do the ads have an impact on what your members buy and use in their practices?

A. The Heart Rhythm Society offers sponsorship opportunities at the annual scientific sessions to provide advertising opportunities for participating exhibitors. Approximately 50 percent of the revenue for the annual scientific sessions is generated by industry in a combination of exhibit space rental (largest), sponsorship/promotional advertising opportunities, unrestricted educational grants and exhibitor office suites. The society does not collect data or ask attendees if sponsorship or advertising impacts their purchase decisions.

Very few people quoted in the ProPublic series ventured to defend the marketing onslaught. There was only this. In a newer follow up article, Chris Ornstein quoted meeting attendees with similar sentiments:

'I’ve always been rather offended that people who aren’t doctors think I’m susceptible to bribes and corruption,' [Raleigh, NC electophysiologist Dr Mark] Englehardt said. 'A lot of what you learn about products is from people that sell the products. … You have to learn it somewhere.'

Note that the good Dr Englehardt lead off by invoking a straw-man fallacy. Being influenced by advertising is not the same as taking bribes. No one accused those attending the conference of taking bribes. More importantly, his argument in favor of advertising invoked a false dilemma (or false dichotomy). There certainly are sources of information about products, and particularly about electrophysiologic devices, beyond manufacturers' advertising.  The choice is not simply ignorance versus advertising.

Others merely sought to minimize the harms of exposure to so much advertising. For example, one of the HRS' defenders, who not coincidentally runs a much larger medical society, which also has had its issues with its extensive ties to industry, (look here) said:

The 'circus element' of the exhibit booths doesn’t unduly influence attendees, [CEO of the American College of Cardiology Jack] Lewin said. 'I don’t buy a soft drink just because of the advertising… I buy it because I like it.'

Maybe not, but the analogy may not be apt. Furthermore, we have seen a stream of physicians, other health professionals, and academics deny that they are influenced by marketing or monetary incentives. It is hard to believe, however, that industry would spend so much trying to influence opinions without some evidence that the money provides some results. In addition, most people seem to lack insight about what influences their opinions, especially when consciously admitting such influence might threaten their self-image.

On the other hand, the follow-up article also noted:

Some doctors acknowledged that the corporate barrage must have some effect. 'I hope not, but I’m certain that it does,' said Dr. Christopher Conley of Nashville, Tenn. 'I’m sure the companies do their own research. They wouldn’t be here, they wouldn’t be putting all this money out if it didn’t influence people.'

It seems obvious that all the advertising was meant to sell products. It seems unlikely that marketers spend so much money without some reason to believe it would have an effect. Even if it had little effect, was there any benefit to selling all that marketing space that would counter-act one glaringly obvious harm? By raising so much money from such obvious and widespread marketing, the Cardiac Rhythm Society meeting is liable to be viewed more as a marketing event than a serious scientific or professional venue.

Is It a Professional Society, or a Marketing Firm?

As noted above, accepting so much money for such a large marketing presence at its national meeting makes the Heart Rhythm Society appear to resemble a marketing firm.  Other information revealed by ProPublica increases the apparent similarity. 

Societies are groups of people who gather for a common purpose.  Medical societies ought to be groups of doctors who gather for common purposes, usually including promoting their own professional interests and upholding professional values.  They typically used to convene meetings for educational or advocacy purposes, and publish journals or other media.  Thus their typical sources of revenue could be dues, meeting registrations, and subscription and similar fees. 

However, as noted above, half of the Heart Rhythm Society's budget comes from industry, specifically "from makers of drugs, catheters and defibrillators used to control abnormal heart rhythms," according to ProPublica.  The picture was similar in 2009.  I reviewed the organization's most recent (2009) financial disclosure (990 form) filed with the US Internal Revenue Service and made available to the public by Guidestar.  In that year, the organization's total revenues were $14,772,708.  Revenues from "grants and sponsorships" were $4,061,883 and from annual meeting exhibits were $3,065,750, for a total of $7,127,633.  So only about half of the society's revenues came from traditional sources, including meeting registration ($4,749,974) and dues ($1,513,361).  Given that some of the registration fees doubtless came from industry attendees, and some product sales ($212,298) and royalties ($511,760) also came from industry sources, the organization's revenue makes it appear at least at least as much like a marketing firm as a medical society. 

Note that one group of beneficiaries of this industry largess was the organization's paid managers.  The 990 form listed eight executives who made over $150,000 a year in the worst years so far of the Great Recession.  Its CEO received total compensation of $532,691.  His compensation used 3.6% of the organization's total revenue. 

Moreover, the majority of the Heart Rhythm Society's board and officers have major ties to manufacturers of drugs and devices used in the diagnosis and treatment of heart rhythm problems.  As noted above, 12/18 directors were found to have ties to the companies which advertised at the meeting.  Perusal of disclosure forms which the Society, to its credit, does make public here, revealed only three of 20 officers and directors who had nothing to disclose in 2011-12. The current President, Dr Douglas L Packer, had two pages of disclosures, including 10 different device or biotechnology companies from whom he got "significant" (over $10,000) grants or royalty income.  Many other board members and officers had "significant" financial relationships, consulting/ honoraria, speakers' bureau membership, equity interests, with drug, biotechnology, or device companies which make products relevant to cardiac rhythm disorders.
 
The leaders of the society asserted their ability to "manage" industry relationships:

Due to thorough policies and procedures in place for working with industry, the Heart Rhythm Society is comfortable identifying and managing various interactions with industry. Additionally, the society seeks multiple supporters for its educational programs in order to avoid the perception that programs are tied to a specific company. The society has sufficient measures in place to prevent undue influence from industry or introduction of industry bias into HRS-sponsored educational programs, research, scientific documents and policy initiatives.

Later, when directly questioned about the implications of receiving half the organization's funding from industry, they evaded again:

Q. Some researchers on conflicts of interest say that when a medical society receives half of its funding from industry, it is codependent on them and therefore will—consciously or not—avoid criticizing the products they make. How would you respond?

A.  The Heart Rhythm Society’s first and foremost concern is to provide effective and appropriate treatment options to our patients.  It is imperative that we interact with industry to develop better therapies and test them thoroughly in rigorous clinical trials. For this reason, we believe that interacting with industry is not inherently wrong with the correct measures in place to mitigate the possibility of conflicts of interest.

Moreover, the Society maintains a neutral position on all products and services offered by industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is our source for information about new products, safety alerts and drug recalls.

Half of the organization's revenues come from industry, and the organization is willing to expose its meeting attendees to a barrage of advertising to obtain most of these revenues. Providing such advertising does not seem to maintaining "a neutral position." Do its leaders really mean that this proportion of support has no influence on them or how the organization is run? Nearly all the organization's officers and directors have their own financial relationships with industry. Do they really think that these relationships have no effect on their thinking? Would the leaders be indifferent to losing half of the organization's financial support and their own personal financial relationships with industry? If they would not be indifferent to this eventuality, can they argue they are uninfluenced?  Would the organization's CEO, whose compensation is over 3% of the organization's total revenue, be indifferent to a decrease of 50% in that revenue?  If not, could he be uninfluenced by the source of this revenue?

Summary: Why Pay Dues to a Marketing Firm?

As health care dysfunction has gotten worse over the years, as costs rise, access falls, and quality stagnate, as physicians are subject perverse incentives and deceptive marketing, as the medical research literature has been suppressed and manipulated, there have been surprisingly few responses from medical societies.  The case study provided by ProPublica of one such society suggests one reason why.  Medical societies seem to behave increasingly like marketing firms.  The majority of their revenue may not come from their members.  They may be willing to subject their members to a flood of marketing to make more money.  Their leaders may have extensive relationships with industry.  Their paid managers may be dependent on industry revenue for out sized compensation.

If medical societies have come to resemble marketing firms, is it any wonder that they have not spoken up against the commercialization of health care, even when the result has not been good for physicians' core values?  But in that case, why would physicians who care about their patients and their core values want to belong and pay dues to marketing firms?  Inquiring minds want to know....

Maybe physicians should only join medical societies that really act like medical societies.

For further discussion in the blogsphere, see this post by Merrill Goozner on the GoozNews blog, this post by Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, this post by Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry blog, and this post by Paul Thacker on the Project on Government Oversight blog.

Who You Gonna Call? - How Should a Young Academic Respond to a Proffered Conflict of Interest?

To prepare a workshop on conflicts of interest in health care, I wrote a case of a faculty member offered a proposition that might provide a conflict of interest:

Consider a health care researcher called by a commercial health care corporation's marketing department. The department representative proposes paying the researcher as a consultant to write a scholarly article on a specific policy topic of interest to the company. The implication is that the article should be favorable to the interests of the corporation in this arena. The corporation would be delighted to give the researcher editorial and staff assistance in writing the article and getting it published.

Who you gonna call?

The researcher is concerned that getting this consultancy might be a conflict of interest. What organization (e.g., appropriate professional society, unit within his or her academic institution, other academic unit, independent not-for-profit organization or NGO, or government agency) should the researcher contact for support and help? Please give at least one specific example, (preferably including a URL), with a brief justification of why that organization might be helpful.

I sent the case to a few hundred people on our combined mailing list, to see how they might answer.  Responses came from medical academics, with a sprinkling of practitioners, a journalist, and a well-informed lay-person.

Sources of Information: Is It a Conflict of Interest?

Nearly everyone thought it would be unethical for a young academic to be paid as a consultant to write a health policy review policy by a company with a vested interest in the subject, and with editorial and staff support coming from the company.

I implied (but did not make clear) that the faculty member felt uncomfortable with the situation, was looking either for advice and information, or actual support not to accept a conflict of interest that he or she might have felt pressured to take on.

People suggested some sources of information. Most appeared to be useful, but most also were specialized (by clinical specialty, directed at journal editors, directed only at conflicts related to pharmaceuticals, etc)  Those particularly worthy of mention include:
- The Prescription Project's site on medical school conflict of interest policies
- The World Association of Medical Editor's (WAME) site on conflict of interest in scholarly publication
- The PharmedOut.org general resource site
My personal preference for a single source of general information on COIs is the 2009 US Institute of Medicine report on same.  (I will add all these links to our side-bar, and note that there are some other relevant links there.)

The IOM definition of conflict of interest is:

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.

Primary interest include promoting and protecting the integrity of research, the quality of medical education, and the welfare of patients.

So the offer in the above case clearly seemed to present a conflict. The situation presented in my case seemed to present the potential to violate the report's recommendations 5.1 that bans scientific publications "that are controlled by industry," or that "contain substantial portions written by someone who is not identified as an author...."

Note, however, that even the IOM report seems not to question the idea that "collaborations between physicians or medical researchers and pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies can benefit society — most notably by promoting the discovery and development of new medications and medical devices that improve individual and public health."  It has never been clear to me that collaboration requires payment by one party to the other, or that academic medical institutions ought to be developing drugs and devices (as opposed to discovering knowledge that commercial firms might later use to do so.) Furthermore, the IOM report, while it is moderately tough and comprehensive, did not recommend that detailed public disclosure of all relevant conflicts by all parties to them, or an outright ban on all of the sorts of conflicts that many might think are objectionable.

Support to Resist the Proffered Conflict

Suggested sources of help resisting pressure to assume an unwanted conflict of interest included local sources: mentors, grants and contracts offices, local conflict of interest/ ethics committees, compliance departments, and research officers. Some people thought their local versions of the above might be helpful. No person seemed sure that any of these options would clearly lead to support if the academic was being pressured by his or her academic superiors.

However, I have big concerns about the availability of even these sorts of local support.  We know COIs are very prevalent among individual academics.  About 60% of all academics, and of department chairs have important conflicts according to two articles by Campbell et al.(1-2)  So it might be hard for the young academic to find a mentor or university officer who was not already conflicted.

We also know that medical schools and academic medical centers see commercializing their discoveries as taking precedence over their traditional mission of seeking and disseminating knowledge, and providing and improving patient care and public health.  For example, in 2000, a Vice President of the American Association of Medical Colleges(3) wrote that research universities must respond to "societal demands that they become engines of economic development…."[caps added for emphasis] Furthermore,

Academic medicine… finds itself struggling to create a precarious equipoise between the world and values of commerce and those of traditional public service….

Also

In our capitalistic economy the pathway by which research invention becomes beneficial application is often totally dependent on venture capital, the availability of which commonly demands the active participation of academic inventors in the commercial venture; put simply, no participation, no money. It is this demand … that has driven the dramatic increase in medical faculty entrepreneurship.

I have seen university conflict of interest policies that include such verbiage in their introductions. The impression is that most academic medical institutions now think that is their mission, maybe their overriding mission, to develop and commercialize drugs and devices.

So it might also be hard for the young academic to find a local academic unit that is not affected by institutional conflicts of interest. Indeed, none of the people on our list was sure that their institutions had local authorities or units that could help the young academic in the case above avoid the proffered conflict of interest.

A few people suggested external sources of support: e.g., a small medical society, an association of journal editors, a bioethics center. But they too were ambivalent about how helpful they might be. The small medical society would only be helpful for its few members, and the person who mentioned it doubted it could provide more help that citing its own COI policy. The journal editors and their organizations might only be helpful about how the proffered conflict might affect the ability of the faculty member to get the resulting study published. The bioethics center appeared to have heavy institutional conflicts of interest of its own. No one could suggest an independent organization likely to provide effective support to resist COIs to a wide spectrum of academics (or other health care professionals, etc)

Summary

So this exercise did reinforce one of the assumptions I made when writing the case. Young academics at most US (at least) institutions may have little local support for resisting the extant pressure to become conflicted. There are NO generally useful and effective external sources of such support.

I would point out that with all its limitations, the IOM report still called on academic institutions to develop clear guidelines for COIs (3.1, 3.2); ban people with COIs from research on humans (that is, from all clinical research) (4.1); develop educational programs on COIs (5.2); participate in developing continuing medical education that is free of industry influence (5.3); set up a committee on COIs at the board of trustees level (8.1). It also called on the US government to promote research about COIs (9.2).

As far as I can tell, that was all pretty much wishful thinking. Despite the prestige of the IOM, almost none of these recommendations have been implemented. (I have heard so far of one university that seems to have implemented watered down versions of some of the IOM recommendations in their own policy. I would love to be told there are more extensive implementations of these recommendations. If there are, please show me the specifics.)

Furthermore, there seems to be no effective support for the reduction of COIs from accrediting organizations, professional societies, or foundations that fund health care initiatives. (Again, I would love to be told I am wrong, but if I am, show me the specifics.)  Of course, it appears that most professional societies get extensive support from commercial sources, particularly drug, device, and biotechnology companies, and their leadership often have their own financial relationships with for-profit health care corporations.  Foundations that support health care and medicine may have leaders with similar relationships, and may have endowments disproportionately invested in health care corporations.   

Given the pervasive nature of personal and institutional COIs throughout health care, which we have documented on Health Care Renewal , I was saddened, but not surprised by the responses to my query. So many people and so many institutions are making so much money from their industry payments. They will nearly all have excuses so that they can keep accepting the money. Young faculty are unlikely to be able to resist the prevailing culture, especially when it affects so many of their colleagues and supervisors.

I know that the people on our email lists are more aware of this than most. But we all should be saddened and ashamed that so little progress is being made.

Will academic medical institutions ever again put seeking and disseminating new knowledge, and providing and improving patient care and for the public health ahead of trying to be ersatz drug and device companies?

Will professional societies ever again put put their members' core values ahead of pleasing their corporate funders?

Will health care foundations ever again put rescuing health care's core values ahead of bland projects meant not to offend health care corporate leaders?

References


1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)
3. Korn D. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000; 284: 2234-2237. (link here)

Sanofi-Funded Society of Hospital Medicine Stands Up for Lovenox

Here is another case to raise questions about the true goal of some medical societies.  As reported by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal in late June,

A medical researcher and two medical groups with financial ties to Sanofi-Aventis SA have asked federal regulators to hold off on approving generic forms of a Sanofi blood-thinner....

Citing potential patient safety issues, the head of the Society of Hospital Medicine and a medical researcher at Duke University last month sent letters to the Food and Drug Administration contending that Lovenox is too complex for any generic maker to copy fully.

Earlier this year, another Sanofi-sponsored medical group, the North American Thrombosis Forum, sent two letters in favor of Sanofi's position opposing generic Lovenox. None of the letters mentions the signer's financial support from Sanofi.

Two small drug companies, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed applications to the FDA in 2003 and 2005 respectively seeking to sell generic Lovenox, called enoxaparin.

Of course, the two medical societies involved denied that there was any relationship between their support from Sanofi-Aventis and their concerns about the safety of biogeneric medications that might compete with a Sanofi-Aventis product (which, as the WSJ article noted, "had global sales of $4.57 billion in 2009").

Laurence Wellikson, chief executive of The Society of Hospital Medicine, which represents doctors who coordinate patient care, said his letter to the agency 'was based entirely on the best evidence-based medicine available and the collective experience of SHM's senior hospitalists.'

Also

Ilene Sussman, executive director of the North American Thrombosis Forum, said the group's doctors are concerned about generic Lovenox, and its letter was independent of Sanofi.

The CEO of the SHM denied even a responsibility to disclose the Society's support from Sanofi-Aventis:

Dr. Wellikson said it wasn't necessary to disclose that the group receives financial support from Sanofi because its letter 'focused on providing the best, most effective care to the hospitalized patient.'

In fact, the SHM web-site includes a "disclosure of organizational support" page which suggests Sanofi-Aventis provided somewhere between $200,000 to $800,000 for three projects of the Society's projects, "pharmacoeconomics," "improving glycemic control," and "preventing VTE." The latter presumably could have something to do with anti-coagulants such as Lovenox. (The numbers are vague because the statement only discloses the amount of support provided in broad ranges.) Thus, support by Sanofi-Aventis could provide as little as 2.7% or as much as 11.1% of the Society's total income, which was noted to be $7,203,596 in its 2009 Form 990 filed with the IRS, and publicly available via Guidestar.

Given the broad mission of the SHM

SHM is dedicated to promoting the highest quality care for all hospitalized patients. SHM is committed to promoting excellence in the practice of hospital medicine through education, advocacy and research.

one wonders why it would want to get officially entangled in the approval process for specific biogeneric drugs.  If the leadership of the Society is so concerned about the safety of anti-coagulants, one wonders why they did not speak up about the case of the lethal contaminated heparin, about which we have blogged extensively, most recently here.  (I can find nothing on the web to suggest the Society, or Dr Wellikson, ever noted any concerns about this issue.)  Of course, that case involved heparin sold by Baxter International, whose production was out-sourced to a questionable supply chain.  SHM also receives support, amounting to something between 0 and $100,000, according to its "disclosure of organizational support" page, from Baxter International. 

Thus it appears that the leadership of SHM was very concerned about the safety of an anti-coagulant manufactured by a competitor of Sanofi-Aventis which could threaten that company's revenues from the drug, while Sanofi-Aventis is one of the Society's major financial supporters.  On the other hand, the leadership seemed unconcerned about the safety of an anti-coagulant sold under the Baxter International label, while Baxter-International is also one of the Society's major financial supporters.  So it is hard to tell whether the leadership is more concerned about the safety of anti-coagulants, or the financial interests of the drug companies that support it. 

The problem with the funding of health care professional societies by health care corporations that sell products or services that doctors can prescribe or order is that it raises the suspicion that such societies may use their considerable influence to serve the corporations', not patients' interests, and so undermine the professional values of the societies' members.  For this reason, Rothman et al suggested that such societies sever most of their financial ties to such corporations.(1)  (See our blog post here.)  As long as the SHM chooses to accept support from drug and device companies, questions will be asked about the effects of such support on how the Society uses its influence.  Furthermore, assertions that such support is so irrelevant that the Society need not even disclose it will only fuel more suspicion.

If ostensibly mission-driven not-for-profit health care organizations, like health care professional societies, but also including medical schools, academic medical centers, and patient advocacy groups, want the public and health care professionals to believe that they really are mission-driven, they need to spurn funding from organizations with vested interests whose service might distort these missions.

Hat tip to Steve Lucas for his comment here.

References

1. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367-1372. (Link here.)

Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to Frank King, D.C., many more should be doing just that:

Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, absent nerve reflexes, and pathological nerve response patterns that the chiropractic adjustment alone does not correct. The appropriate homeopathic remedies will eliminate aberrant nerve reflexes and pathological nerve responses which cause recurrent subluxation complexes.

Not only does homeopathy correct nerve interferences, it empowers the doctor of chiropractic to reach the entire nervous system. What this means is that we can now better affect the whole person, and all of the maladies that affect us. Homeopathy’s energetic approach reaches deep within the nervous system, correcting nerve interferences where the hands of chiropractic alone cannot reach. Homeopathy is the missing link that enables the chiropractor to truly affect the whole nervous system!

But that’s not all:

Financial Rewards

Homeopathy means a multiple increase in business. Personally, I have been able to see and effectively help more patients in less time. The additional cash flow from broadening your scope of practice, increasing your patient volume and selling the homeopathic remedies is a wonderful adjunct. Better yet are the secondary financial benefits:

• Homeopathy is like an extension of you that the patient can take with them to apply throughout each day in between visits. The actual therapeutic benefits of homeopathy along with the inner comforts of the patient as they connect you with each dose they take.
• The dynamic broadening of your effective scope of practice multiplies the number of patients you can help and the multiple problems that each patient usually has. As you correct one set of problems, there are commonly other problems most patients don’t even tell their chiropractors. This doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Homeopathy empowers the chiropractor to correct conditions ranging from allergies to warts with incredible effectiveness!
• Obviously, the rule of multiples will exponentially increase when a homeopathic procedure is properly implemented into your practice. Many of the conditions people are suffering with have no viable solution without the dynamic duo of chiropractic and homeopathy.
  

You can be the doctor people will seek out, travel long distances to see, and pay cash for your valuable services. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand, it’s a great position to be in.

This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “subluxation” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “practice building.”

Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to make an extra buck. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘diagnostic’ sugar that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out this offering from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”:

HOWW TOOOO ….

The “must do” seminars for those who own or are managing a Complimentary [sic]Medicine Practice.

Three day course teaches you:

How to relate to the patient, evaluate, test and diagnose

How to use solutions, mixtures, methods, supplies and equipment

How to protocol administration for Chelation, Oxidation, Chelox, TriOx, Ascorbates, UVBI

How to design and organize your office

How to hire and fire staff and to computerize

How to use public relations and marketing

How to manage compliance with Medicare, State Medical Boards and governmental regulatory agencies

Manuals included…

Each attendee receives one set of training materials, including:

Protocol Manual

Physicians Manual

Office Procedure Manual

Forms Book

Marketing Manual

Patient Results Manual

Employee Manual

Audio tapes

and other related material.

Bio-pro was founded in 1978 by the late Charles H. Farr, MD, PhD, the self-styled “father of oxidative medicine,” who was also a founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of All Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organizations (PPO). But none of this is surprising, right? After all, quacks quack.

What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was this offering, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine:

Six Ways to Earn Extra Income From Medical
Activities

You’re chasing after claims but watching reimbursement sink.

It’s a common story, and primary care doctors and even specialists are keeping their ears to the ground for other ways to boost their bottom line. Luckily, doctors have some fairly lucrative options that can help them maintain their income — and perhaps even increase it.

We looked at 6 avenues that physicians have taken to earn extra revenue. None of these activities require a tremendous amount of time. Participating in just 1 or 2 activities can put enough money in your pocket to allow you to breathe a little easier when the bills come in.

So what are those ‘6 avenues’? Let’s see:

• Work with Attorneys
• See Nursing Home Patients
• Serve as a Medical Director
  

So far, so not necessarily bad…

• Team Up with Pharmaceutical Companies
  

What??! Team up with pharmaceutical companies? Couldn’t that mean, like, just doing legitimate research and trying like hell to do it right? Uh, nope:

Drug and device companies spend billions of dollars each year to discover and promote new medicines and treatments, and they rely heavily on doctors to participate in these endeavors whether through clinical trials or serving as a speaker or consultant. It’s not uncommon for physicians to earn a minimum of 5 figures a year either speaking or doing clinical studies within their medical practice. Some doctors make in excess of $100,000 annually — on top of their income from seeing patients.

O’course, you gotta watch out for those pesky ethics killjoys, warns Medscape:

Although some extra money is nice, too much can turn heads — and not in a good way. In late January, The Boston Globe reported on an allergy and asthma specialist who was issued an ultimatum by his hospital, the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts): Stop moonlighting on behalf of pharmaceutical companies or resign from your staff position.

What it all comes down to is this:

Pros: With typical payments running about $1500-$2500 for a single talk, there’s substantial opportunity to supplement your regular income…

Cons: These arrangements are coming under increasing scrutiny from hospitals, legislators, regulators, and the media. In fact, some of the doctors whom we contacted for this article declined to talk about their involvement with drug companies.

Uh, no kiddin’. Funny that the “increasing scrutiny” doesn’t seem to come from organized medicine, medical schools, mainstream medical journals, state medical boards, or doctors in general. A couple of years ago I lamented the publication of a couple of book reviews, in the lofty New England Journal of Medicine, that celebrated trendy pseudomedicine. Shortly thereafter I received this from an emeritus editor:

I think the incursion into the bastions of medicine has to do with the fact that everything nowadays—absolutely everything—has become a market. If quackery appeals to the readers of the NEJM, it will be there. ”Is it true?” is no longer the question anyone asks, but “Will it sell?” And I think that applies to the editors of most major journals, as well.

True, dat. As for Medscape, this isn’t its first ethical gaff, and I agree with Bernard Carroll that it seems to have “a right hand – left hand problem.”

Oh yeah: what were the other 2 “avenues”? Those would be:

• Become a Media Personality
• Consult for Wall Street

Paging (and Paying) "Dr Coca-Cola"

A few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times Booster Shots blog announced that "Dr. Coca-Cola will see you now," noting opposition to the recently revealed alliance between the Coca-Cola Company and the American Academy of Family Physicians:

[in] a sharply worded letter sent Wednesday to Dr. Douglas E. Henley, the academy’s chief executive.

'We urge the AAFP to regain its credibility by rejecting the deal with Coca-Cola,' the letter stated. 'If the AAFP declines to do that, we urge your organization to reassert its support for the public health (and its own independence) by supporting a warning label on caloric sugar-sweetened beverages and a federal tax on soft drinks to support health promotion or health insurance programs.'

The letter was signed by 22 doctors, nutritionists and health advocates,

Dr Henley was not moved:

Henley told Food Navigator-USA.com that the academy was aware of the letter. But he stood by the partnership with Coke.

'We will move forward with this commitment together by providing educational materials on sweeteners and how to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle while still enjoying many of the foods and beverages consumers love,' he said in a statement.

Nonetheless, criticism of the deal has continued. A Kansas City Star editorial said:

the Leawood-based American Academy of Family Physicians has set a poor example when it comes to resisting the lure of the soft drink industry.

The academy has accepted a grant from Coca-Cola, reportedly in the neighborhood of $500,000. It will use the money for educational materials about drinks and sweeteners for its consumer Web site, FamilyDoctor.org. Leftover funds will go into the academy’s general budget.

In return, Coca-Cola gets what? Legitimacy, for one thing. Consumers are less likely to consider a product unhealthy if it’s listed as a partner with a leading physicians’ alliance.

In a more shameful scenario, the soft drink manufacturer would succeed in muting the message that the academy puts out to its consumers.

The editorial did not buy Dr Henley's assurances:

Academy leaders say they won’t allow the hefty corporate grant to compromise the organization’s integrity.

'We have total editorial control, as we always have, of FamilyDoctor.org,' said Executive Vice President Douglas Henley.

Henley added, 'I would hope folks won’t rush to judgment but hold us to the content we’re going to put on FamilyDoctor.org.'

But consumers accessing that information will soon be informed that information about soft drinks is being sponsored in part by Coca-Cola, 'a proud partner of FamilyDoctor.org.'

That’s a mixed message, regardless of the content.

Meanwhile, family physician and AAFP member Dr Howard Brody noted on his Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog how AAFP leaders continued to obfuscate:

AAFP President Dr. Lori Heim: obesity is more complex and that 'there's no one evil out there.'

Why does the question of whether it's a good idea for AAFP to take money from Coke so quickly segue into the question of whether Coke is 'evil'? (For our blogger colleague who likes logical fallacies, Roy Poses, this sounds like "straw man." [It sure does - Editor]) Why does it have to be: either they are evil or else it's just fine for us to take their money? What cannot it simply be that they have different interests--they are trying to make a buck selling beverages (some of which I enjoy drinking myself, I am pleased to report, if they don't have calories in them) while AAFP is trying to protect the public interest through credible health education? What part of conflict of interest don't you understand?

Some AAFP members went beyond criticism, as reported by the AP:

Dr. William Walker, public health officer for Contra Costa County near San Francisco, likened the alliance with ads decades ago in which physicians said mild cigarettes are safe,

Walker has been a member of the academy for 25 years but quit last week. He said 20 other doctors who work with his local medical practice also quit because of the Coke deal.

Nonetheless, as Dr Brody later posted,

Sadly, if the responses to this news report from AAFP leadership are accurate, the AAFP still does not get it. '[AAFP CEO Dr. Douglas] Henley said the academy regrets the resignations and hopes other members will not 'rush to judgment' before seeing the new content." News flash: we don't need to see the content to know there's something rotten in Denmark. The deal itself raises concerns about the credibility of anything AAFP posts about diet and obesity from now on.

So here we have the latest variant on institutional conflicts of interest affecting medical associations. We have noted (e.g., here) how professional societies have blithely accepted substantial funding from corporations which sell products physicians may prescribe for or implant in patients. This raises concerns that professional societies have become drug and device marketers. This conflicts with physicians' prime directive, to put the interests of individual patients ahead of their own, and hence to base decisions on which drugs to prescribe, tests to order, and procedures to do on maximizing benefits and minimizing harms for individual patients, not maximizing financial gain for physicians, or their organizations.

Family physicians are a respected source not only of decisions about tests and treatments, but about diet. Having the main family physician organization humming "things go better with Coke" suggests that professional advice could be co-opted by marketing. As Dr Brody noted above, the issue is not whether the product is good or bad, but is whether physicians are giving each patient the best possible advice.

One question implied by the "Dr Coca-Cola" story is why the leadership of the AAFP seems so oblivious to the conflict of interest issues it raises.  As Dr Brody wrote:

What's even more depressing is that with the whole world telling them that they mishandled this affair, the AAFP still seems to think that the problem is someone else's.

I appreciate Dr Brody's depression, but note that this is not the first time that AAFP leadership has seemed tone deaf to the issue of the organization's institutional conflict of interest. In 2005, we posted how the AAFP had banned the "No Free Lunch" organization, which opposes most pharmaceutical marketing to physicians, from appearing in the exhibit hall of its annual meeting. The exhibit hall was otherwise populated by lavish exhibits by pharmaceutical and other health care corporation marketers.

The abstract for a 2006 article in Family Medicine [Standridge JB. Of doctor conventions and drug companies. Fam Med 2006; 38(7):518-20. Link here] began:

Pharmaceutical companies provide the majority of financial support for staging the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Annual Scientific Assembly. In return they are allowed to dominate the physical and mental environment.

The current web-site for the AAFP Foundation boasts of its corporate partners, which include many of the biggest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (at the "Pinnacle" level, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Purdue Pharma.

So adding Coca-Cola to the list of corporate sponsors does not seem like such a big step.  In fact, being "Dr Coca-Cola" does not seem intrinsically more questionable than being "Dr Amgen," "Dr AstraZeneca," etc.

Nonetheless, one would think that the latest round of criticism would make the top leaders of this august professional society less comfortable about the organization's financial relationships with pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and now beverage corporations.  I fear, though, that they may live too much in the sort of bubble that now protects top executives of most large health care organizations to really question their corporate ties.  After all, according to the most recent (2007, covering 6/2007-5/2008) US Internal Revenue Service form 990 filed by the AAFP (via Guidestar), its leaders get sufficient compensation to put them into such a bubble.  For example, Dr "Coca-Cola" Hensley received $441,027 regular compensation and $108,930 in benefits and deferred compensation, compared with a median compensation for family physicians in 2008 reported as $159,000 from one survey.  Presumably "voluntary" officers got five- and six-figure "expense accounts and other allowances," maxing out at $195,648 for then President Dr James B King.  It may be hard for leaders who are so comfortably recompensed by the organization to become uncomfortable about the financial relationships that make the largesse they receive seem less of a burden for members who may not be so well-paid.  The leaders' comfort with the current arrangement, however, makes their organization more liable to be viewed as a drug, device, and now beverage marketer rather than a defender of physicians' professionalism.  Maybe the leaders should accept more austere compensation, perhaps similar to what working family doctors get paid, as the price they need to pay to remove questions about their organization's real commitment to professionalism.