this is truly disturbing news to me..no wonder our doctors know only 2 things, how to cut and prescribe...this is a long read but well worth it in imho.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:t3ygNdYcqj8J:www.sacme.org/Outside_SACME/documents/relman_as01.pdf+pharma+influence+on+American+medical+schools&hl=enRepresentatives of the pharmaceutical companies say their intention is simply to generate goodwill by helping the pro-viders of CME with the costs of educational programs. That claim might be believable were financial assistance the total extent of their help and were the curriculum content and the educational event totally unaffected by the industry’s financial support. But that is not the case. The pharmaceutical industry provides a substantial proportion of the several billion dollars spent on CME (Continuing Medical Education) annually and uses that support as a marketing tool. It could not invest such large sums without seeking more commercial benefit than mere goodwill and name recognition. The fiercely competitive nature of the prescription drug market plainly requires that companies tie their financial support to the promotion of their products, and that is what they do. Consider these pharmaceutical industry practices, now common in accredited CME programs, which have the effect of linking financial support of the programs to the marketing objectives of the companies that provide the funding. With the approval of the CME providers, pharmaceuticalcompanies sometimes help organize and advertise the edu-cational event; they may prepare teaching slides and cur-riculum materials, and they compile lists of possible speak-ers and indirectly pay them. They also may subsidize practitioners, medical students, residents, and fellows to attend. Attendees are often rewarded by the company with free meals and other amenities.In community hospitals,pharmaceutical companies often organize teaching conferences, and they provide free meals for attendees. At, or adjacent to, virtually all educational sessions subsidized by industry, sales representatives are allowed to display and promote the company’s products, particularly the products related to the topic of the program.
The conflicts of interest and the likelihood of biased presentations inherent in such practices are obvious and hardly need elaboration. A recent review article on this subject included evidence showing that industry-supported educational activities are slanted in favor of the financial supporter’s products and that physicians attending such courses later prescribe these products more often than competing drugs. 1 This should be no surprise to any experienced observer of industry-supported programs. Regardless of their technical pedagogic quality, most presentations are characterized by their friendly treatment of the company’s drug. The company’s mission is to sell its products, and it uses its par-ticipation in CME to further that end. Support for CME comes from the marketing budget in most companies, and that budget must produce sales. A spokesman for the industry’s trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, put it succinctly in a recent newspaper article about industry-supported CME: “Companies live through education,”he said. 2 The detailing of individual physicians in practice, all expenses paid symposia for physicians in posh resorts, and mass advertising to the profession and the public all serve the same purpose. Like CME,They are called education by the pharmaceutical industry, but they are all intended to promote sales. The true purpose of pharmaceutical support of CME is perhaps most clearly revealed by the growing new industry called Medical Education and Communication Companies(MECC). These for-profit companies, now numbering more than 100, put together educational programs to be presented in hospital grand rounds and in freestanding CME presentations, and they prepare various other teaching materials for physicians. The MECCs are paid mainly by pharmaceutical companies,and they supply their educational programs grat is to hospitals, other CME sponsors, and individual physicians. 3 Astonishingly enough, many MECCs are accredited by the medical profession’s Accreditation Councilon Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), and therefore can take full responsibility for independently sponsoring their own accredited CME programs. Thus, the hired agents of pharmaceutical companies are given authority for the content of CME programs. Even more astonishing, the ACCME has accredited a major pharmaceutical company and several foundations and institutes that are closely affiliated with pharmaceutical companies.
According to a report recently released by the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group in Washington, DC, MECCs(called Medical Education Service Suppliers or MESSs in the report) are candid in explaining the real purpose of their business to prospective pharmaceutical industry clients. 3 For example, one company says, “Medical education is a powerful tool that can deliver your message to key audiences and get those audiences to take action that benefits your product.” Another firm advertises itself as “Putting the science of medicine to work for you. Preparing and building the market through professional education.” Still a third says it is a business that “never loses sight of the strategic value of
programs to enhance its client’s corporate image and to strengthen brands.” The MECC industry, as described in the Public Citizen’s report, was the subject of a recent editorial comment by The Lancet, which expressed concern “that so much continuing medical education comes through the filter of industry.”
Although the pharmaceutical industry is seriously misguided in becoming so deeply involved in CME, more faultlies with the professional providers of the accredited CME programs that have allowed and even encouraged this involvement to grow. After all, the pharmaceutical industryis doing what is expected of any business, ie, trying to maximize its sales.
much more