By Pauline Chen
The New York Times - Well
Originally published October 3, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
A significant proportion of medical schools and teaching hospitals end up the beneficiaries of such promotional largesse. But in recent years, leaders in medical education and, more notably, a growing contingent of medical students, have called for changes in a professional culture that accepts interactions with industry as the “norm.” In 2007, the American Medical Students Association published the PharmFree Scorecard, a rating system that grades medical schools on the strength of their policies regulating interactions between industry and students and faculty. Around the same time, the Association of American Medical Colleges and several medical schools issued policy statements calling for a decrease in the influence of industry in education.
Observers hailed these initiatives as transformative, but in the years since it’s not been all that clear that a transformation has actually occurred.
The entire story is here.
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical Policy. Show all posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Institutional Corruption and Pharmaceutical Policy
Institutional Corruption and Pharmaceutical Policy
An Edmond J. Safra Center Symposium
(forthcoming)
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
Vol. 14, No. 3 (2013)
The goals of pharmaceutical policy and medical practice are often undermined due to institutional corruption — that is, widespread or systemic practices, usually legal, that undermine an institution’s objectives or integrity. The pharmaceutical industry’s own purposes are often undermined. In addition, pharmaceutical industry funding of election campaigns and lobbying skews the legislative process that sets pharmaceutical policy. Moreover, certain practices have corrupted medical research, the production of medical knowledge, the practice of medicine, drug safety, and the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of pharmaceutical marketing.
As a result, practitioners may think they are using reliable information to engage in sound medical practice while actually relying on misleading information and therefore prescribe drugs that are unnecessary or harmful to patients, or more costly than equivalent medications. At the same time, patients and the public may believe that patient advocacy organizations effectively represent their interests while these organizations actually neglect their interests.
The entire journal is here.
The articles are organized into five topics: (1) systemic problems, (2) medical research, (3) medical knowledge and practice, (4) marketing, and (5) patient advocacy organizations.
An Edmond J. Safra Center Symposium
(forthcoming)
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
Vol. 14, No. 3 (2013)
The goals of pharmaceutical policy and medical practice are often undermined due to institutional corruption — that is, widespread or systemic practices, usually legal, that undermine an institution’s objectives or integrity. The pharmaceutical industry’s own purposes are often undermined. In addition, pharmaceutical industry funding of election campaigns and lobbying skews the legislative process that sets pharmaceutical policy. Moreover, certain practices have corrupted medical research, the production of medical knowledge, the practice of medicine, drug safety, and the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of pharmaceutical marketing.
As a result, practitioners may think they are using reliable information to engage in sound medical practice while actually relying on misleading information and therefore prescribe drugs that are unnecessary or harmful to patients, or more costly than equivalent medications. At the same time, patients and the public may believe that patient advocacy organizations effectively represent their interests while these organizations actually neglect their interests.
The entire journal is here.
The articles are organized into five topics: (1) systemic problems, (2) medical research, (3) medical knowledge and practice, (4) marketing, and (5) patient advocacy organizations.
Physicians Under the Influence: Social Psychology and Industry Marketing Strategies
By Sunita Sah and Adriane Fugh-Berman
April 30, 2013
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Volume 14, No. 3, August 2013,
Forthcoming Edmond J. Safra Working Papers, Forthcoming
Abstract
Pharmaceutical and medical device companies apply social psychology to influence physicians’ prescribing behavior and decision-making. Physicians fail to recognize their vulnerability to commercial influences; due to self-serving bias, rationalization, and cognitive dissonance. Professionalism offers little protection; even the most conscious and genuine commitment to ethical behavior cannot eliminate unintentional, subconscious bias. Six principles of influence — reciprocation, commitment, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity — are key to the industry’s routine marketing strategies, which rely on the illusion that the industry is a generous avuncular partner to physicians. In order to resist industry influence, physicians must accept that they are vulnerable to subconscious bias, and have both the motivation and means to resist industry influence. A culture in which accepting industry gifts engenders shame, rather than gratitude, will reduce conflicts of interest. If greater academic prestige accrues to distant, rather than close relationships with industry, a new social norm may emerge that promotes patient care and scientific integrity. In addition to educating faculty and students about the social psychology underlying sophisticated, but potentially manipulative marketing and about how to resist it, academic medical institutions should develop strong organizational policies to counteract the medical profession’s improper dependence on industry.
The entire paper is here.
April 30, 2013
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Volume 14, No. 3, August 2013,
Forthcoming Edmond J. Safra Working Papers, Forthcoming
Abstract
Pharmaceutical and medical device companies apply social psychology to influence physicians’ prescribing behavior and decision-making. Physicians fail to recognize their vulnerability to commercial influences; due to self-serving bias, rationalization, and cognitive dissonance. Professionalism offers little protection; even the most conscious and genuine commitment to ethical behavior cannot eliminate unintentional, subconscious bias. Six principles of influence — reciprocation, commitment, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity — are key to the industry’s routine marketing strategies, which rely on the illusion that the industry is a generous avuncular partner to physicians. In order to resist industry influence, physicians must accept that they are vulnerable to subconscious bias, and have both the motivation and means to resist industry influence. A culture in which accepting industry gifts engenders shame, rather than gratitude, will reduce conflicts of interest. If greater academic prestige accrues to distant, rather than close relationships with industry, a new social norm may emerge that promotes patient care and scientific integrity. In addition to educating faculty and students about the social psychology underlying sophisticated, but potentially manipulative marketing and about how to resist it, academic medical institutions should develop strong organizational policies to counteract the medical profession’s improper dependence on industry.
The entire paper is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)