Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 79–83

Limiting the Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry Gifts on Physicians: Self-Regulation or Government Intervention?

Health Policy

Abstract

Concerns over the influence of pharmaceutical gifts on physicians have surged in recent years. This has prompted wide ranging legislative proposals in numerous states and in the federal government as well as stepped up efforts at self-regulation by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. Policymakers face the decision of whether to defer to self-regulation or support government intervention. This commentary describes efforts at self-regulation by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. The author examines and critiques the wide ranging legislative strategies pursued to limit the influence of pharmaceutical gifts on physicians and concludes with suggestions for policymakers and the profession to limit influence and preserve public trust.

KEY WORDS

medical professionalism pharmaceutical marketing conflicts of interest 

References

  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA code on interactions with healthcare professionals. Washington, DC; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris G. Drug industry to announce revised code on marketing. New York Times 2008 July 10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry - Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283:373–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Is your doctor tied to drug makers? New York Times 2007 Jul 2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris G. Senators seek public listing of payments to doctors. New York Times 2007 Sep 7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waxman HA. Memorandum: The marketing of Vioxx to physicians. Washington, DC: United States House of Representatives - Committee on Government Reform; 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waxman HA. The lessons of Vioxx: drug safety and sales. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2576–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meier B, Saul S. Marketing of Vioxx: how Merck played game of catch-up. New York Times 2005 February 11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagnon M, Lexchin J. The cost of pushing pills: A new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Medicine. 2008;5:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene J. Pharmaceutical marketing research and the prescribing physician. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:742–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Opinion of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs E-8.061: gifts to physicians from industry. American Medical Association. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/Code_of_Med_Eth/opinion/opinion8061.html)
  12. 12.
    PhRMA code on interactions with healthcare professionals. 2002. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://www.phrma.org/files/PhRMA%20Code.pdf)
  13. 13.
    Opinion E-8.061 Gifts to Physicians from Industry: clarifying addendum. American Medical Association. (Accessed April 30, 2008, at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/Code_of_Med_Eth/opinion/opinion8061.html)
  14. 14.
    Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L,et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295:429–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Association of American Medical Colleges. Industry funding of medical education - report of an AAMC task force. Washington, DC; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    AMSA PharmFree Scorecard. American Medical Student Association, 2008. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://amsascorecard.org/.)
  17. 17.
    Campbell E, Gruen R, Mountford J, Miller L, Clearly P, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gibbons R, Landry F, Blouch D, et al. A comparison of physicians' and patients' attitudes toward pharmaceutical industry gifts. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:151–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross JS, Lackner JE, Lurie P, Gross CP, Wolfe S, Krumholz HM. Pharmaceutical company payments to physicians: early experiences with disclosure laws in Vermont and Minnesota. JAMA. 2007;297:1216–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290:252–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Department of Health and Human Services - Office of the Inspector General. OIG compliance program guidance for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Fed Regist. 2003;68:23731–43.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chimonas S, Rothman DJ. New federal guidelines for physician-pharmaceutical industry relations: The politics of policy formation. Health Aff. 2005;24:949–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Studdert D, Mello M, Brennan TA. Financial conflicts of interest in physicians' relationships with the pharmaceutical industry - Self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1891–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    § 151.47. In: Minnesota Statutes; 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    § 4632. In: Vermont Statutes; 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    An Act to Promote Cost Containment, Transparency, and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care. General Laws of Massachusetts; 2008.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Payments to physicians fact sheet. The Prescription Project. (Accessed April 10, 2009, at http://prescriptionproject.org/tools/solutions_factsheets/files/0006.pdf)
  28. 28.
    Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2007 - S. 2029. Library of Congress. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://thomas.loc.gov/)
  29. 29.
    PhRMA Statement on Senate Sunshine Act. 2008. (April 30, 2008, at http://www.phrma.org/news_room/press_releases/phrma_statement_on_the_senate_sunshine_act/)
  30. 30.
    O'Reilly K. "Sunshine" bill sets $100 trigger for disclosing drug industry pay to doctors. AMNews 2009 Feb 23.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    O'Reilly K. Drugmakers vow to disclose their payments to physicians. AMNews 2008 Nov 17.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cain D, Loewenstein G, Moore D. The dirt on coming clean: perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. J Legal Stud. 2005;34:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harris G. Doctors' ties to drug makers are put on close view. New York Times 2007 March 21.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harris G. 3 Researchers at Harvard are Named in Subpoena. New York Times 2009 March 27.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harris G. Psychiatrists Top List in Drug Maker Gifts. New York Times 2007 June 22.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    § 151.461. In: Minnesota Statutes; 2006.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    CMR 970.000: Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturer Conduct. 2009. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr970.pdf)
  38. 38.
    Harris G. Minnesota limits on gifts to doctors may catch on. New York Times 2007 October 12.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aitken M, Berndt ER, Cutler DM. Prescription drug spending trends in the United States: Looking beyond the turning point. Health Aff 2009;28:w151–60.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prescription Information Law. In: NH Rev Stat Ann; 2006.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    DataMonitor. Personalized physician marketing: Using physician profiling to maximize returns. New York, NY; 2001.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    IMS Health Inc. and Verispan, LLC v. Kelly A. Ayotte, New Hampshire Attorney General. 2008. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/07-1945P-01A.pdf)
  43. 43.
    Prescription Data Restriction Program. American Medical Association. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/12054.shtml)
  44. 44.
    Grande D, Asch DA. Commercial versus social goals of tracking what doctors do. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:747–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    DC ST § 3-1202.08, 3-1207.42, 3-1207.41. In: District of Columbia Code; 2008 (June 4).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Independent Drug Information Service. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://www.rxfacts.org/.)
  47. 47.
    Under the Influence: Can We Provide Doctors An Alternative To Biased Drug Reviews? United State Senate Special Committee on Aging, 2008. (Accessed April 30, 2009, at http://aging.senate.gov/hearing_detail.cfm?id=301126&.)
  48. 48.
    O’Brien M, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4:Art. No.: CD000409.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Katz P. These drug reps come bearing facts, not freebies. ACP Observer 2007 July-August.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chiong W. Industry-to-physician marketing and the cost of prescription drugs. Am J Bioeth. 2003;3:W28–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Statehealthfacts.org: Pennsylvania providers and service use. 2007. (Accessed April 30, 2008, at http://statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=8&sub=100&rgn=40)
  52. 52.
    Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: A proposal for controlling conflict of interest. JAMA. 2009;301:1367–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations