Posts filed under 'Healthcare Transparency'
By Cheri
Larry Weber, Chairman of W2 Group, recently interviewed Charlie Baker, president and CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare and prolific blogger at Let’s Talk Healthcare on “Market Edge with Larry Weber” about the hesitancy of healthcare companies to engage in social media. While this topic has been discussed frequently in social media circles, it was great to hear Baker’s perspective on this, since he was one of the first healthcare executives to embrace social media and open a dialogue with the community through his blog. Baker spoke about the importance of removing the nameless-ness and faceless-ness out of the healthcare industry and learning from the community. Overall, he feels that the delay from the industry is the fear of giving up control and having people write negative comments on the site. While this is of course a concern, he urges other leaders to start the dialogue and thinks that it will soon pick up steam. The interview can be heard at: http://www2.webmasterradio.fm/market-edge/
What are your thoughts about the future of transparency and dialogue in the healthcare industry?
May 19th, 2009
By Rachel
A recent article published in GP, the weekly magazine aimed at UK healthcare professionals working in primary care, highlighted the risks associated with doctors participating in social networking sites. The article highlighted that doctors have found themselves before the General Medical Council (GMC) for making critical remarks, for example, about staff in the department of health, or by breaching patient confidentiality on doctor-only websites. In some cases, doctors may feel they are safe to criticise if they have not had to reveal their professional identify. However, this can easily be identified through the GMC.
The growth of social networking among the general population has been reflected in the medical field with sites springing up specifically for these audiences e.g. Sermo and Doctors.net.uk. An increasing number of healthcare professionals are also participating in public sites such as Facebook and MySpace. With social networking still in its early days and guidelines yet to be developed, healthcare professionals should be aware of some of the pitfalls and maintain a high level of professional conduct in the digital world as they would in the ‘real’ one.
However, perhaps we should be encouraging a free and open exchange between healthcare professionals in an age of increasing transparency. This is certainly being promoted in the patient community with the UK government planning an NHS website where patients can post messages about their experiences of GP practices. It seems only right that doctors should be able to have their say too.
January 29th, 2009
By Rachel
The European Commission recently announced legislative proposals aimed at ensuring everyone across the EU has equal access to reliable information on medicines, how and why they have been authorised, and how they are monitored. Once these proposals have been approved by the EU, pharmaceutical companies will be able to provide information on prescription-only medicines directly to patients – a first for the pharmaceutical industry.
The Commission advises that the information should be communicated through websites devoted to medicines, and through written answers to questions from patients and the general public. This is a logical step as studies have demonstrated that the general public are using the Internet more frequently to search for health-related topics. One study reported that, in 2008, 52 per cent of Europeans use the Internet for health-related research compared with 43 per cent in 2005. Therefore, there is a real need to provide patients, thier families and carers with accurate, up-to-date information on medicines from reliable Internet sources.
The Commission’s recommendations must not be misinterpreted as allowing direct to consumer advertising; this remains banned. In providing information to patients, pharmaceutical companies must ensure that it is non-promotional, fair and balanced. There will be a responsibility for communicators within pharmaceutical companies and those acting on their behalf to make sure standards are maintained and best practice guidance followed. With this in mind, a new code of conduct is called for. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI) Code of Practice administered by the Prescription Medicine Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) in the UK, provides an example of how promotion to healthcare professionals, the media and patients is effectively regulated. The new recommendations also call for additional guidance on how the Internet can be used by the pharmaceutical companies, an area that has previously lacked clear guidance, especially in terms of the social media such as blogs, forums, communities, wikis, etc.
With appropriate monitoring and regulations around how pharmaceutical companies communicate directly with patients, this legislation can only be a positive for patients and the pharmaceutical industry. It can help patients gain a better understanding of their health condition, the medications they are taking and potentially aid compliance.
December 17th, 2008
By Rachel
The role that pharma companies and communications agencies acting on their behalf play in medical education has been much debated. I agree we need to look at the level of influence pharma companies have over physician education and prescribing decisions. However, as long as pharma companies are transparent in their communications and provide resources that are balanced and fair, it seems to be that their role is a crucial one, especially in an environment where funding for education is limited.
One advance in communications that plays out well for balanced, un-biased information sharing is the Social Web (i.e. the application of the World Wide Web that facilitate many-to-many conversations, debate and information sharing). We are already seeing websites springing up where physicians can share their experiences, ask colleagues questions about clinical decisions, take part in educational webinars, and read peer-reviewed articles rated by fellow medical professionals. Perhaps this is the way forward and pharma companies should be investing their resources in developing online platforms for these two-way dialogues. Anything that is clearly promotional, with little educational content, will be quickly shunned. I know this is a challenging area for pharma companies due to the lack of guidance from regulatory bodies. However, with careful consideration and strict operating protocols, there can be clear advantages for those willing to launch in.
October 28th, 2008
Rachel
The EU Commission recently announced it would allow pharmaceutical companies to play a greater role in providing patients with information on diseases and treatments. In response to this, Which? – the UK independent consumer rights charity – has launched a drive to maintain the current ban on pharmaceutical companies promoting their prescription-only medicines directly to the consumer. But is the Which? campaign really the best for patients? Patients can already easily search online for information on medicines and gain access to websites intended for either healthcare professionals or US consumers. It seems ironic that the manufacturers of treatment are not allowed to communicate directly with the people who are taking their products in the EU.
It would be counter productive and ineffective to try and control or stifle information that is already available to the public. Maybe the EU Commission is right to consider relaxing the laws around direct-to-consumer advertising because they realise they are losing a battle to stop information getting out?
We should not be looking to overcome the EU regulation, but rather work alongside the EU Commission to educate and inform. If consumers want information on pharmaceuticals, they will no doubt find it. Anyone who tries to stifle or stop that information being published risks a potential backlash from consumers.
In today’s Internet-centric world, digital media communications can afford companies and regulatory bodies opportunities to ensure that information is communicated correctly, coherently and informatively. Most importantly, in a responsible fashion. As long as the pharmaceutical industry provides the information in a balanced and non-promotional way, it can take an active role in encouraging patients to learn about the particular condition and highlight relevant treatments for it.
October 20th, 2008
With marketing campaigns masquerading as clinical trials, how can we be certain of the safety of our treatments?
By Dana
You’ve heard this story before. Big Pharma, in a bid to stay relevant in an ever-changing landscape, sinks money and resources into a blockbuster clinical trial that appears to be on the up-and-up, but is really just a clever guise for a marketing campaign aimed at drumming up business and revenue for a drug that hasn’t been through the rigors of a traditional clinical review.
The August 19 edition of the New York Times caused eyebrows to raise at the so-called “rapid roll-out” and aggressive marketing campaigns surrounding cervical cancer vaccinations from Merck and Glaxo. Pundits fear the call-to-action messaging consumers are inundated with– in everything from movie previews to product placement on primetime TV– will mask the fact that people should proceed with caution until the impact of the drugs is better defined. As of now, we’ve got throngs of parents clambering to the family PCP to inoculate daughters who aren’t even sexually active—and we don’t even know the risks or long-term effects of the vaccines yet.
And if that weren’t bad enough, Merck also came under fire in the August 19 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine for ADVANTAGE, a seeding trial centered on the hapless painkiller Vioxx. The group of physicians behind this exposé is scathing in its criticism of the trial, calling ADVANTAGE a “dishonest…corruption of science” and pointing out that the true aim of the study (selling drugs) is shrouded in formalities that make it appear legit. A disappointment, to be sure, for all the patients who participated and consequently doubled their risk of heart attack or stroke.
It’s clear that in the race to lobby for acceptance and drive growth, ethics are compromised, an all-too-common theme in the pharmaceutical industry. For an illustration into the magnitude of this problem, one need look no further than to the NYU study launched earlier this year that reported the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on product promotion as it does on R&D.
What effect will the marketing veil of big pharma have on the little guy? It’s simultaneously already vividly apparent and yet to be seen. In today’s world, we decree that transparency be maintained across all echelons of big business, and go so far as to destroy Wal-Mart for fleecing the American populace with a jocular blog. How could that same standard not translate to an industry so intimately connected to our quality of life?
August 21st, 2008
By Cheri
The WSJ recently published an article about the controversies surrounding the research for treatment of line sepsis. While two medical groups have already endorsed this therapy and many US hospitals have adopted it, questions are being raised about the thoroughness of the research. These concerns were amplified when the hospital that conducted the research turned out to be holding patents for a device critical to the therapy and one of the backing groups had financial support from the device manufacturer.
So the question is once again raised in the medical community about transparency. Several months ago flags were raised about ghost writing in peer-reviewed medical journals and before that studies that appeared in NEJM and JAMA fell under scrutiny as the studies were biased and inaccurately favorable to the funding company.
Is this tidal wave of negative publicity for the medical community the tip of the ice berg or has it just been an unfortunate summer for transparency in the community?
August 20th, 2008
By Cheri
Several weeks ago a grievous medical error occurred at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston-the wrong side of a patient was operated on. The error has garnered national and local attention, bringing to light the failure to follow protocol in the operating room.
Instead of masking the event, the hospital sent a hospital wide email and the hospital’s CEO, Paul Levy, posted frequently on the subject on his blog. He even disclosed that the surgeon would not be punished for the error because he reported to his superiors and apologized to the patient. Levy believes that punishing the surgeon would discourage surgeons or doctors for stepping forward in the future when they’ve committed an error.
For me, it is disturbing to learn that the surgeon and the rest of the team involved in this procedure won’t be punished.
Certainly there should be full disclosure in the medical field but not at the expense of accountability. Perhaps I feel strongly as I have family members that are currently being cared for and the thought of them being injured by someone’s mistake is difficult to swallow.
But I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue. How would you have handled this case if you were a hospital administrator?
July 21st, 2008
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
