By Palmer Reuther
The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Johns Hopkins has banned free drug samples and gifts from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. To ensure that these new regulations are met, the University is restricting drug and device sales reps from patient-care areas of its hospital and clinics.
There is no huge surprise here and this trend is expected to continue as the doc-rep relations comes under increased scrutiny. It is interesting that medical device and pharma cos are being lumped together under the same regulations. Historically, pharma cos have been at the tip of the compliance spear, with similar regulations then sweeping the med device industry.
Health care compliance is a growing area of interest for those in the industry. We’ll be sure to keep an eye out for other developments in this area.
April 9th, 2009
By Jackie
When it comes to the most reputable, credible sources of medical information, the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) inarguably top the lists. Considered the holy grail of medicine, these journals serve as the go-to source for everything medical. Without blinking an eye, physicians across the world have historically based drug choices, treatment options and procedural decisions on the study data and findings presented in these two books.
Well folks, that’s all changing now. Over the past couple of months, several studies published in both JAMA and NEJM have come under severe scrutiny by the medical industry. Turns out, three recent pharmaceutical-based studies were found biased and inaccurately favorable toward the industry funder, demonstrating the lengths pharmaceutical companies are willing to go to manipulate the odds in their favor. Additionally, just last month, a lung cancer study set off a firestorm among medical researchers as a leading lung cancer researcher failed to disclose the source of her funding in published studies. That source? Tobacco maker Liggett Group Inc.
When you consider the weight that physicians have traditionally placed on these studies, this news is particularly disturbing, especially from a patient perspective. Fortunately, a number of physicians are coming to the forefront, challenging other physicians to rethink the way they view medical studies. Some physicians have even gone so far as to vocally equate industry-funded research with pharmaceutical advertisements. At any rate, MDs are encouraging their peers to review these studies with a skeptical eye and a careful examination of all funding sources.
Until the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increases its financial support of clinical studies, researchers will likely continue their financial dependence on industry players. It is refreshing, however, to know that a large cohort of physicians are speaking out and challenging the status quo. I think I can speak for all patients when I say, we do appreciate it.
June 6th, 2008
