The Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) is getting significant press around the country, including an article today in the American Medical News entitled:
Industry gift bans slammed for overreaching: Some physicians criticize the bans as going too far and harming innovation.
The article goes on to describe the first meeting and goals of . Thomas P. Stossel, M.D., said critics of physician industry relationships are "pharmascolds" who aim to bring about a "conflict-of-interest police state." represents the views of many doctors who had steered clear of the public debate, he said.
"There's been this unanswered barrage of criticism saying that physician industry interaction is corrupt and harmful to patient care," said Dr. Stossel, a Professor of Medicine at and Director of Translational Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. "The tipping point came when some of these states started to pass confusing and demeaning laws, and when the academic health centers started telling people who they can associate with."
What especially has some physicians upset, Dr. Stossel said, is the Assn. of American Medical Colleges' 2008 stand that industry-sponsored speakers' bureaus not include medical faculty. Many leaders have been paid by drugmakers for research, speaking, and consulting.
"These rules are not helping patients, and prohibitions are being imposed on activities that have real social value," Dr. Stossel said.
has not yet taken positions on issues such as the Sunshine Act, though members said they generally favor transparency, if it is not used to demonize physicians who work with industry. On its website, said it wants "to reverse policies instituted to curtail or minimize interaction between industry and physicians, educators and researchers."
One of the speakers at ACRE's charter meeting was Carey Kimmelstiel, M.D., Director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory and Interventional Cardiology at . He said industry-funded quarterly educational meetings of interventional cardiology fellows in the area have been put on hold indefinitely, thanks to the state's new regulations.
"The funding's dried up," he said. "In the current environment, where physicians are squeezed every which way, if you lose industry funding, it's very difficult to make that up on your own with your own dollars."
They readily point out that several organizations including the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the of Cardiology have recently issued statements or editorials on the need for continued collaboration with industry.
“There must be a middle ground,” Dr. Bove wrote. “Physicians should be able to conduct industry-funded clinical trials or consult with industry without being tainted with an assumption of lifelong misbehavior.”
The American Assn. of Clinical Endocrinologists and the of Endocrinology issued a joint statement in June saying, “There is no inherent conflict of interest in the working relationship of physicians with industry and government.”
endocrinologist Steven M. Petak, M.D., led the task force that developed the statement. "There have been some abuses, but for the most part, physicians have the best interest of their patients in mind," he said. "We are concerned about insulating physicians from being able to learn about new products and how they fit into their armamentarium, and that patient care will suffer because patients will be locked into a certain set of choices that may not represent the best choice for that individual."
They close with a couple quotes from Howard Brody, M.D., Ph.D. a family physician with the of at . Howard has a blog entitled Hooked on Ethics, Medicine and Pharma and has blogged continually about .
It is interesting that Howard in the article wondered what planet those involved in are living on, and for Howard, this statement may be true, but I think it is Howard that is not living here on earth.
The ridiculous statement of the week goes to him at the end of the article:
Nothing is stopping physicians from working with drug- or device- makers, Dr. Brody said. "There's absolutely nothing in any of these guidelines or recommendations that prevents fruitful exchanges of information and knowledge between anyone in academia and industry. If what you want to do is, in fact, discover new drugs, no one's stopping you."
Brody should stop and take an economics-101 course (apparently that was missing from all his education), it is ridiculous to think that physicians should only help develop new drugs but never talk about them or explain the benefits and side effects to other physicians.
Also, if Dr. Brody thinks he can provide these educational services for free (which I seriously doubt) than more power to him. Perhaps one day, Dr. Brody will return to earth and help develop cures for diseases and educate others on those cures, instead of criticizing those who do.