We recently wrote a story describing the potential global implications the Physician Payments Sunshine Act will have on physicians and applicable manufacturers. Interestingly, the New York Times Well blog coincidentally covered a story regarding payments made to an orthopedic surgeon for work he did educating and training doctors in Asia.
Specifically, the article examined the physician-industry collaboration of Dr. Alfred J. Tria, the chief of orthopedic surgery at St. Peter’s University Hospital, a 478-bed facility in New Brunswick, N.J., and the medical technology company Smith & Nephew. Using recently reported data from Massachusetts—where Tria is licensed, and thus reporting is applicable under State law—the Times reports that Dr. Tria received $421,905 from private industry in 2010, and a total of $940,857 between 2009-2011.
What were the payments for? According to the author, to promote Smith & Nephew’s products and train doctors in Asia. Thus, manufacturers and physicians need to be aware that any U.S. licensed physicians (as the final Sunshine rule states) will have their payments reported, regardless of where the nature of the transaction or relationship, activity or service occurs.
Asked whether such payments could pose a conflict of interest for physicians, Dr. Tria said, “It’s a legitimate concern.” A spokesman for St. Peter’s said Dr. Tria had disclosed his financial relationships with industry to the hospital and refused to elaborate on the hospital’s policy.
The author, quoting several proponents of transparency, including Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, who authored the recent NEJM article on Massachusetts payments, believes that patients will use publicly posted payment data. Kessleheim thinks that a patient who goes to an orthopedic surgeon and recommends a knee transplant may go to another who recommends watching and physical therapy, which might lead the patient to “wonder to what extent those two physicians have relationships with industry.”
Unfortunately, this one sided consumer piece neglects to mention any balanced portrayal of physician industry relationships or the medical breakthroughs, advances, and lives saved because of such collaboration. The author goes on and on, citing industry critic and transparency proponent (who have their own conflicts for creating this “mania” and COI industry), without providing any objective or alternative viewpoint.