Accountability

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies which contains 32 separate organizations has come out with a joint statement regarding the use of pharmaceutical company funding. As you might expect, the drug industry has direct and indirect influence on clinical practice by paying scientists and practicing physicians in various ways. Research studies can be fully or partially funded, universities can receive endowments, clinicians can be paid to speak to others about certain drugs or medical devices, dinners can be provided to offer a nice setting to present new research and products. On the lower end, offices can receive products to use everyday – which come with the drug or drug company logos.

What is especially disconcerting is how the drug industry can influence best practice guidelines. In other words, their funding and kick backs can lead to a protocol for treating disease which may turn out to be - well – not best. Some practice guidelines that are prescription heavy – and may or may not be examples of influence – involve the treatment of heart disease (cholesterol), osteoporosis (osteopenia) and tobacco dependence.

Just last week I read a brief on a study that showed that the more aggressive use of medicines to lower cholesterol was NOT more effective than moderate changes in diet and exercise. This is the type of post market comparative research we need. We have gotten to the point of thinking that drug benefit managers who limit our use of prescriptions are the enemy – when in fact, it may be drug companies who are manipulating us.

With respect and reservation – as the research and development that goes into drug creation can indeed lead to life saving chemical interventions and for that I do offer deference.

I applaud any industry, as the one mentioned above, that strives towards openness and independence in regards to the delivery of health care.