Last week, the Institute of Medicine, as a profession, launched an attack on medical societies in The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) entitled, “Special Communication” Professional Medical Associations and Their Relationships with Industry a Proposal for Controlling Conflicts of Interest.
The report was planned for several years and paid for by Pew Charitable Trust monies through the Prescription Project to Institute of Medicine as a Profession: IMAP-Prescription Project: Report on Conflict of Interest in Medical Societies (December of 08 Post).
According to Merrill Goozner: During a conference call, three of the eleven co-authors on the paper predicted many major medical societies will seriously consider the proposal.
"Ten years ago (concerns about conflicts of interest) was a breeze, five years ago a wind, now it is a gale storm," Rothman said. "Change is going to come. The likelihood of these recommendations being implemented is quite strong."
Only two current leaders at professional societies — Ralph W. Hale of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and James H. Scully of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) — were among the 11 signers. Last week, the APA made news by declaring it would stop taking money from industry.
Goozner also notes: The next target on IMAP's radar screen: patient advocacy groups, many of which receive all or nearly all of their funding from the drug, biotechnology, or medical device companies. "We are going to address these patient advocacy groups, some of which are grass roots and some of which are astro-turf," Rothman said.
Patient advocacy groups need to be alerted that this very effective strategy as seen with Academic Medical Centers (Brennan paper 2006, followed by AAMC Taskforce 2008, followed by major reforms 2009), and now Medical Specialty Societies is a model that is working for IMAP. This will be used against them.
They want to cause shame for doing the right thing (working with industry to develop new products that saves lives) even if it costs more in the short run.
This strategy should be exposed for what it really is, short sighted contempt. Medical societies, academic medical centers, and patient groups need to stand-up against this bullying tactic; otherwise as a society we will all suffer the consequences of a lost medical research and education base.