Who You Gonna Call? - How Should a Young Academic Respond to a Proffered Conflict of Interest?

To prepare a workshop on conflicts of interest in health care, I wrote a case of a faculty member offered a proposition that might provide a conflict of interest:

Consider a health care researcher called by a commercial health care corporation's marketing department. The department representative proposes paying the researcher as a consultant to write a scholarly article on a specific policy topic of interest to the company. The implication is that the article should be favorable to the interests of the corporation in this arena. The corporation would be delighted to give the researcher editorial and staff assistance in writing the article and getting it published.

Who you gonna call?

The researcher is concerned that getting this consultancy might be a conflict of interest. What organization (e.g., appropriate professional society, unit within his or her academic institution, other academic unit, independent not-for-profit organization or NGO, or government agency) should the researcher contact for support and help? Please give at least one specific example, (preferably including a URL), with a brief justification of why that organization might be helpful.

I sent the case to a few hundred people on our combined mailing list, to see how they might answer.  Responses came from medical academics, with a sprinkling of practitioners, a journalist, and a well-informed lay-person.

Sources of Information: Is It a Conflict of Interest?

Nearly everyone thought it would be unethical for a young academic to be paid as a consultant to write a health policy review policy by a company with a vested interest in the subject, and with editorial and staff support coming from the company.

I implied (but did not make clear) that the faculty member felt uncomfortable with the situation, was looking either for advice and information, or actual support not to accept a conflict of interest that he or she might have felt pressured to take on.

People suggested some sources of information. Most appeared to be useful, but most also were specialized (by clinical specialty, directed at journal editors, directed only at conflicts related to pharmaceuticals, etc)  Those particularly worthy of mention include:
- The Prescription Project's site on medical school conflict of interest policies
- The World Association of Medical Editor's (WAME) site on conflict of interest in scholarly publication
- The PharmedOut.org general resource site
My personal preference for a single source of general information on COIs is the 2009 US Institute of Medicine report on same.  (I will add all these links to our side-bar, and note that there are some other relevant links there.)

The IOM definition of conflict of interest is:

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.

Primary interest include promoting and protecting the integrity of research, the quality of medical education, and the welfare of patients.

So the offer in the above case clearly seemed to present a conflict. The situation presented in my case seemed to present the potential to violate the report's recommendations 5.1 that bans scientific publications "that are controlled by industry," or that "contain substantial portions written by someone who is not identified as an author...."

Note, however, that even the IOM report seems not to question the idea that "collaborations between physicians or medical researchers and pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies can benefit society — most notably by promoting the discovery and development of new medications and medical devices that improve individual and public health."  It has never been clear to me that collaboration requires payment by one party to the other, or that academic medical institutions ought to be developing drugs and devices (as opposed to discovering knowledge that commercial firms might later use to do so.) Furthermore, the IOM report, while it is moderately tough and comprehensive, did not recommend that detailed public disclosure of all relevant conflicts by all parties to them, or an outright ban on all of the sorts of conflicts that many might think are objectionable.

Support to Resist the Proffered Conflict

Suggested sources of help resisting pressure to assume an unwanted conflict of interest included local sources: mentors, grants and contracts offices, local conflict of interest/ ethics committees, compliance departments, and research officers. Some people thought their local versions of the above might be helpful. No person seemed sure that any of these options would clearly lead to support if the academic was being pressured by his or her academic superiors.

However, I have big concerns about the availability of even these sorts of local support.  We know COIs are very prevalent among individual academics.  About 60% of all academics, and of department chairs have important conflicts according to two articles by Campbell et al.(1-2)  So it might be hard for the young academic to find a mentor or university officer who was not already conflicted.

We also know that medical schools and academic medical centers see commercializing their discoveries as taking precedence over their traditional mission of seeking and disseminating knowledge, and providing and improving patient care and public health.  For example, in 2000, a Vice President of the American Association of Medical Colleges(3) wrote that research universities must respond to "societal demands that they become engines of economic development…."[caps added for emphasis] Furthermore,

Academic medicine… finds itself struggling to create a precarious equipoise between the world and values of commerce and those of traditional public service….

Also

In our capitalistic economy the pathway by which research invention becomes beneficial application is often totally dependent on venture capital, the availability of which commonly demands the active participation of academic inventors in the commercial venture; put simply, no participation, no money. It is this demand … that has driven the dramatic increase in medical faculty entrepreneurship.

I have seen university conflict of interest policies that include such verbiage in their introductions. The impression is that most academic medical institutions now think that is their mission, maybe their overriding mission, to develop and commercialize drugs and devices.

So it might also be hard for the young academic to find a local academic unit that is not affected by institutional conflicts of interest. Indeed, none of the people on our list was sure that their institutions had local authorities or units that could help the young academic in the case above avoid the proffered conflict of interest.

A few people suggested external sources of support: e.g., a small medical society, an association of journal editors, a bioethics center. But they too were ambivalent about how helpful they might be. The small medical society would only be helpful for its few members, and the person who mentioned it doubted it could provide more help that citing its own COI policy. The journal editors and their organizations might only be helpful about how the proffered conflict might affect the ability of the faculty member to get the resulting study published. The bioethics center appeared to have heavy institutional conflicts of interest of its own. No one could suggest an independent organization likely to provide effective support to resist COIs to a wide spectrum of academics (or other health care professionals, etc)

Summary

So this exercise did reinforce one of the assumptions I made when writing the case. Young academics at most US (at least) institutions may have little local support for resisting the extant pressure to become conflicted. There are NO generally useful and effective external sources of such support.

I would point out that with all its limitations, the IOM report still called on academic institutions to develop clear guidelines for COIs (3.1, 3.2); ban people with COIs from research on humans (that is, from all clinical research) (4.1); develop educational programs on COIs (5.2); participate in developing continuing medical education that is free of industry influence (5.3); set up a committee on COIs at the board of trustees level (8.1). It also called on the US government to promote research about COIs (9.2).

As far as I can tell, that was all pretty much wishful thinking. Despite the prestige of the IOM, almost none of these recommendations have been implemented. (I have heard so far of one university that seems to have implemented watered down versions of some of the IOM recommendations in their own policy. I would love to be told there are more extensive implementations of these recommendations. If there are, please show me the specifics.)

Furthermore, there seems to be no effective support for the reduction of COIs from accrediting organizations, professional societies, or foundations that fund health care initiatives. (Again, I would love to be told I am wrong, but if I am, show me the specifics.)  Of course, it appears that most professional societies get extensive support from commercial sources, particularly drug, device, and biotechnology companies, and their leadership often have their own financial relationships with for-profit health care corporations.  Foundations that support health care and medicine may have leaders with similar relationships, and may have endowments disproportionately invested in health care corporations.   

Given the pervasive nature of personal and institutional COIs throughout health care, which we have documented on Health Care Renewal , I was saddened, but not surprised by the responses to my query. So many people and so many institutions are making so much money from their industry payments. They will nearly all have excuses so that they can keep accepting the money. Young faculty are unlikely to be able to resist the prevailing culture, especially when it affects so many of their colleagues and supervisors.

I know that the people on our email lists are more aware of this than most. But we all should be saddened and ashamed that so little progress is being made.

Will academic medical institutions ever again put seeking and disseminating new knowledge, and providing and improving patient care and for the public health ahead of trying to be ersatz drug and device companies?

Will professional societies ever again put put their members' core values ahead of pleasing their corporate funders?

Will health care foundations ever again put rescuing health care's core values ahead of bland projects meant not to offend health care corporate leaders?

References


1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)
3. Korn D. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000; 284: 2234-2237. (link here)

The Avandia Spin Cycle Continues Even After the FDA Safety Hearings

We have posted multiple times about Avandia (rosiglitazone), GlaxoSmithKline's star-crossed glucose-lowering drug.  While Avandia has received considerable media coverage, we focused on two questions: 1 - what are the benefits and harms of rosiglitazone as a treatment of type 2 diabetes, and therefore for which patients under what circumstances should this drug be used? 2 - what barriers have prevented physicians and patients from getting the best possible answer to the first question, and what can be done about them?  (See recent post here.) 

In particular, the Avandia case has illustrated how those with vested interests in the success of a health care product have done their best to obscure information that might threaten its success, even when doing so obscures the information that physicians and patients need to make the best possible decisions.  At one point, (in 2007, no less) we called this the "Avandia spin cycle."

Avandia once again has been in the news after the US Food and Drug Administration's hearings on the safety of the drug.  These hearings were so well covered in the media that a lengthy summary would be superfluous.  However, their main points demonstrated the persistence of the Avandia spin cycle:
- An FDA reviewer felt that "the company's misreadings of the ... Record trial ... were so profound, he concluded, that they 'suggest serious flaws with trial conduct.'" (per Gardiner Harris writing in the New York Times)
-A former FDA reviewer "withheld from regulators a study showing its Avandia diabetes drug may cause heart attacks." (per Bloomberg News)
- GlaxoSmithKline's forerunner SmithKline Beecham "secretly began a study to find out if its diabetes medicine, Avandia, was safer for the heart than a competing pill, Actos, made by Takeda."  However, "the study also provided clear signs that it [Avandia] was riskier to the heart.  But instead of publishing the results, the company spent the next 11 years trying to cover them up." (per Gardiner Harris writing in the New York Times.
- "Government experts and a panel of medical advisers repeatedly voiced skepticism on Tuesday about the trustworthiness of GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the controversial diabetes drug Avandia." (per Gardiner Harris again writing in the New York Times.)

So the Avandia saga has brought to the front pages the concerns we have had with suppression and manipulation of clinical research, especially when pursued by health care organizations with vested interests in the results of specific research projects coming out a certain way, and how they have been enabled by those with conflicts of interest.  Doctors thus should be worried whether those of us who try to practice evidence-based medicine have been fooled into practicing pseudo-evidence-based-medicine.

Those commenting on the story focused on the need for transparency when clinical research is funded and run by the corporations whose products are being evaluated.
-  "GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia, can't be trusted to report adverse clinical results fairly.  The company must be watched like a hawk as additional trials that it sponsors go forward."  (NY Times editorial)
-  "What America should demand in return for ... [generous patent] protection is that the FDA be able to make an honest evaluation of the efficacy of drugs.  When drug companies make this impossible by suppressing test results, not only do they violate their fundamental obligation of honesty with the public, their customers and their regulator, but they also break the bargain they have struck in return for the protection of their intellectual capital."  (Former NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in Slate.)

Instead, as I have written before, maybe we ought to consider whether those with vested interests in drugs or devices ought to be running clinical research meant to evaluate their own products.

 Ironically, while this discussion of how the Avandia spin cycle first began to revolve were going on, others were still trying to add revolutions (per minute).  In particular, a Reuters story noted:

Three influential groups of doctors who treat diabetes urged patients not to stop taking Avandia, saying on Thursday that while news about the controversial drug may be frightening, it would be worse to suddenly stop taking it.

That is odd, given that Avandia has never been shown to improve clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes, and that there are many other drugs that control blood sugar which appear to be safer. But wait, there is more,

The Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists worried that patients may be afraid to take Avandia.

'Patients should continue taking all currently prescribed medications unless instructed otherwise by their health care provider,' Dr. Robert Vigersky of the Endocrine Society said in a statement.

'Stopping diabetes medications can cause significant harm and result in higher levels of blood glucose that may cause severe short term health problems and could increase the risk of diabetes-related complications in the long term.'

Would not it make more sense to advise patients still on Avandia to consult with their doctors urgently about possible alternatives?  Meanwhile, it does not seem irrational to be afraid of taking Avandia, given the increasing evidence about its harms, and increasing evidence that what we know about its harms may be an under-estimate.

So I wondered why these august medical societies seemed so unaffected about the doubts about Avandia's safety, and about the evidence offered to support its use that the latest news ought to generate. It turns out that all three of the medical societies get financial support from, -- wait for it --, GlaxoSmithKline.

The Endocrine Society lists GSK as one of its Corporate Liaison Board Members. The American Diabetes Association lists GSK as one of its Banting Circle Supporters, that is, those that give at least $1,000,000 a year. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists lists GSK as a member of its Corporate AACE Partnership. (I was not able to find out the total amount contributed by GSK to either the Endocrine Society or the AACE.)

So once again, the loudest voices in support of the product come from those used to, and perhaps dependent on financial support from its manufacturer. As a physician, I have been particularly disappointed that our medical societies, whose missions are ostensibly to support our professional values, seem to act more and more like marketers for the companies whose contributions, rather than members' dues increasingly support them.

The cycle keeps spinning.

For further thoughts on the latest in the Avandia case, see this post by Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, and this by Alison Bass on the Alison Bass Blog.

Sanofi-Funded Society of Hospital Medicine Stands Up for Lovenox

Here is another case to raise questions about the true goal of some medical societies.  As reported by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal in late June,

A medical researcher and two medical groups with financial ties to Sanofi-Aventis SA have asked federal regulators to hold off on approving generic forms of a Sanofi blood-thinner....

Citing potential patient safety issues, the head of the Society of Hospital Medicine and a medical researcher at Duke University last month sent letters to the Food and Drug Administration contending that Lovenox is too complex for any generic maker to copy fully.

Earlier this year, another Sanofi-sponsored medical group, the North American Thrombosis Forum, sent two letters in favor of Sanofi's position opposing generic Lovenox. None of the letters mentions the signer's financial support from Sanofi.

Two small drug companies, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed applications to the FDA in 2003 and 2005 respectively seeking to sell generic Lovenox, called enoxaparin.

Of course, the two medical societies involved denied that there was any relationship between their support from Sanofi-Aventis and their concerns about the safety of biogeneric medications that might compete with a Sanofi-Aventis product (which, as the WSJ article noted, "had global sales of $4.57 billion in 2009").

Laurence Wellikson, chief executive of The Society of Hospital Medicine, which represents doctors who coordinate patient care, said his letter to the agency 'was based entirely on the best evidence-based medicine available and the collective experience of SHM's senior hospitalists.'

Also

Ilene Sussman, executive director of the North American Thrombosis Forum, said the group's doctors are concerned about generic Lovenox, and its letter was independent of Sanofi.

The CEO of the SHM denied even a responsibility to disclose the Society's support from Sanofi-Aventis:

Dr. Wellikson said it wasn't necessary to disclose that the group receives financial support from Sanofi because its letter 'focused on providing the best, most effective care to the hospitalized patient.'

In fact, the SHM web-site includes a "disclosure of organizational support" page which suggests Sanofi-Aventis provided somewhere between $200,000 to $800,000 for three projects of the Society's projects, "pharmacoeconomics," "improving glycemic control," and "preventing VTE." The latter presumably could have something to do with anti-coagulants such as Lovenox. (The numbers are vague because the statement only discloses the amount of support provided in broad ranges.) Thus, support by Sanofi-Aventis could provide as little as 2.7% or as much as 11.1% of the Society's total income, which was noted to be $7,203,596 in its 2009 Form 990 filed with the IRS, and publicly available via Guidestar.

Given the broad mission of the SHM

SHM is dedicated to promoting the highest quality care for all hospitalized patients. SHM is committed to promoting excellence in the practice of hospital medicine through education, advocacy and research.

one wonders why it would want to get officially entangled in the approval process for specific biogeneric drugs.  If the leadership of the Society is so concerned about the safety of anti-coagulants, one wonders why they did not speak up about the case of the lethal contaminated heparin, about which we have blogged extensively, most recently here.  (I can find nothing on the web to suggest the Society, or Dr Wellikson, ever noted any concerns about this issue.)  Of course, that case involved heparin sold by Baxter International, whose production was out-sourced to a questionable supply chain.  SHM also receives support, amounting to something between 0 and $100,000, according to its "disclosure of organizational support" page, from Baxter International. 

Thus it appears that the leadership of SHM was very concerned about the safety of an anti-coagulant manufactured by a competitor of Sanofi-Aventis which could threaten that company's revenues from the drug, while Sanofi-Aventis is one of the Society's major financial supporters.  On the other hand, the leadership seemed unconcerned about the safety of an anti-coagulant sold under the Baxter International label, while Baxter-International is also one of the Society's major financial supporters.  So it is hard to tell whether the leadership is more concerned about the safety of anti-coagulants, or the financial interests of the drug companies that support it. 

The problem with the funding of health care professional societies by health care corporations that sell products or services that doctors can prescribe or order is that it raises the suspicion that such societies may use their considerable influence to serve the corporations', not patients' interests, and so undermine the professional values of the societies' members.  For this reason, Rothman et al suggested that such societies sever most of their financial ties to such corporations.(1)  (See our blog post here.)  As long as the SHM chooses to accept support from drug and device companies, questions will be asked about the effects of such support on how the Society uses its influence.  Furthermore, assertions that such support is so irrelevant that the Society need not even disclose it will only fuel more suspicion.

If ostensibly mission-driven not-for-profit health care organizations, like health care professional societies, but also including medical schools, academic medical centers, and patient advocacy groups, want the public and health care professionals to believe that they really are mission-driven, they need to spurn funding from organizations with vested interests whose service might distort these missions.

Hat tip to Steve Lucas for his comment here.

References

1. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367-1372. (Link here.)

BLOGSCAN: CMSS New Ethics Code Analyzed

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies got some good press for its new code of ethics regarding medical associations' interaction with industry.  Two of the best skeptical bloggers about health care dissected the code, suggesting it will not be as tough as it was cracked up to be.  See these posts by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog and by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

Effort to Make Health Insurance Reimbursement Fairer Lead by Director of Insurance Company Accused of Unfair Practices

We previously discussed a legal settlement of charges that UnitedHealth's Ingenix subsidiary manipulated its database of payments to physicians so as to reduce its and other insurers' payments to "out-of-network" physicians. 

One aspect of the settlement was a new initiative to better determine such payments.  Now that effort has been caught up in the web of conflicts of interests that has ensnared health care.  As reported by the Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard,

[New York state Attorney General Andrew] Cuomo obtained $100 million in settlements from 13 insurers, including Excellus, that used the defective reimbursement data supplied by Ingenix, a subsidiary of United Health, the nation’s second biggest insurer. Cuomo’s investigation showed insurers such as Excellus used that data to shortchange New York consumers by as much as 28 percent.

Also, the settlement included

money ... to create FAIR Health Inc., a New York City-based nonprofit that is supposed to come up with a new, fair reimbursement system that will be used by insurers nationwide. FAIR Health has contracted with SU [Syracuse University] to help create that database.

The effort was lead by SU Professor Deborah Freund, "a distinguished professor of public administration and economics. She also is an adjunct professor of orthopedics and pediatrics at Upstate Medical University."

However,

Freund also happens to be listed on the health insurance company’s payroll.


Excellus paid Freund $61,378 last year for serving on its board of directors, according to a financial report Excellus filed with the state last week.

After The Post-Standard spent several days investigating her ties to the insurance company, Freund quit the Excellus board Friday afternoon.

The Post-Standard noted,

But some consumer advocates said it was odd that a paid director of Excellus, one of the companies targeted in Cuomo’s investigation, was playing such an important role.

[Art] Levin, of the Center for Medical Consumers, said it was ironic that one of the people helping to fix a payment system riddled with industry conflicts of interest may have had a conflict of her own.

'This makes no sense whatsoever given that Excellus is part of the settlement,' Levin said.

Chuck Bell, programs director of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and an outspoken supporter of the payment reform project, was unaware of Freund’s ties to Excellus.

'I think it’s a concern because consumers do want this to be an entity that is independent of the insurance industry,' Bell said.

Among Freund's defenders was

Dr. Nancy Nielsen, immediate past president of the American Medical Association and a board member of FAIR Health, [who] said the AMA looked closely at Freund’s qualifications and her Excellus affiliation. She said the doctors’ group concluded her expertise is important to the project and was comfortable that there were enough safeguards in place to avoid any conflicts. Nielsen said FAIR Health would have independent experts not tied to the insurance industry review any recommendations from Freund’s research team.

But to add another level of irony, and perhaps conflict of interest, the Minneapolis - St Paul Business Journal just announced

The American Medical Association will use an electronic health records system from Ingenix, the company said Monday.

The Eden Prairie health care information technology said its Web-based CareTracker software will run on an AMA platform currently in beta testing with the Michigan State Medical Society and will launch nationwide later this year.

The platform is touted as a way to improve patient care, clinical efficiency and make administration simpler. CareTracker is the first such system that the AMA will provide to physicians online.

'Ingenix and the AMA will help doctors adopt health IT systems that reduce time spent on administrative tasks and enable them to devote more of their time to patient care,' said Bill Miller, Ingenix executive vice president of health care delivery systems, in a news release. 'Ingenix CareTracker integrates patient medical records and e-prescribing tools into the physician’s workflow. By selecting CareTracker for its platform, the AMA is helping physicians make smarter, more practical decisions about technologies to support their practice.'

Although we often discuss conflicts of interests involving physicians or health care academics who moonlight for drug and device companies, and the effects of these relationships on clinical research and medical education, it seems like the pervasive web of conflicts of interest in health care has entangled just about every kind of health care organization, health care decision-maker, and health care opinion leader.

Thus, we need to be extremely skeptical of just about everyone and every organization claiming to provide health care related goods and services, or whose goal is to improve any aspect of health care. The danger is that such skepticism will lead to cynicism and distrust.

At the least, comprehensive, detailed disclosure of all even indirectly relevant financial and other relationships by all health care decision-makers and opinion leaders at any level, whether they be individuals or organizations, would make it somewhat easier to assess their decisions and opinions.

Deja Vu All Over Again - Sheffield Researcher Under Threat for Trying to Present Data that Offends Research Sponsor

It's deja vu all over again.  A case reported (so far only) in the UK Times Higher Education Supplement of a biomedical researcher apparently threatened because she tried to present data that did favor a particular commercial health care product. Here is the summary:

An academic has risked the wrath of her university by submitting results to a forthcoming conference without permission.

The University of Sheffield has claimed that the submission has been made in breach of a contract it has with a pharmaceutical company, which funds work in the scholar's field.

Guirong Jiang, a research radiologist who has worked at Sheffield for 13 years, is due to face a disciplinary hearing over her actions this week.

Her findings - submitted to a symposium of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS), to be held in Glasgow in June - add to the debate over what some have claimed is a distortion in the field of osteoporosis caused by the over-diagnosis of vertebral fractures.

Here are more particulars:

Sheffield has censured her for making the submission without the consent of her supervisor, Richard Eastell, head of Sheffield's Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism.

It said her actions breached the terms of a 2007 contract the unit has with pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis to conduct studies relating to the osteoporosis treatment risedronate, which is sold as the drug Actonel.

It also said Dr Jiang failed to follow 'reasonable requests' to withdraw the submission.

Dr Jiang said she believed her results should be published as they had not been reflected in the unit's previous output.

She added that last December she was informed that her contract would not be renewed when it came to an end this March, which she said had prompted her to throw caution to the wind and publish without permission.

She has queried whether her work is bound by Sheffield's Sanofi-Aventis contract, which stipulates that the company must be allowed to review manuscripts and abstracts prior to publication.

She pointed out that the work was carried out in 2002 when the unit's risedronate work was funded by Procter & Gamble in partnership with Aventis. Dr Jiang added that she had not seen or signed the full Sanofi-Aventis contract.

Dr Jiang is still under threat:

The disciplinary hearing, scheduled to take place on 18 February, will consider the allegation that Dr Jiang 'acted inappropriately in making a direct submission of an abstract to a journal outside unit protocol and in contravention of the terms of the research contract'.

It will also consider the charge that she 'failed to follow a request by her head of unit and head of department to rectify her actions', which 'aggravated a situation which otherwise could have been quickly resolved'.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, academics had the expectation that they could publish or present their research without first acquiring the express approval of their academic superiors (at least as long as their work was original, the research project was under their control, and that they had properly protected the rights of any human subjects). Furthermore, in at least the US, academics are citizens who expect to have free speech.

But as academic institutions became more enamored of and dependent on "external funding," faculty were increasingly pressured to do only sponsored research. The growing dependence on sponsored research allowed the sponsors to try to get more control over how research was done.

In the 1990s, there were several important cases in North America in which academic researchers tried to present or publish results that clashed with their research sponsors' vested interests. Doing so resulted in lesser or greater threats to the faculty. Two of the classic cases of research suppression in the 1990's demonstrated this issue.


* In the "David Kern case," a textile manufacturer, Microfibres Inc., tried to prevent Dr. David Kern, a general internist and occupational medicine physicians at Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and faculty member at Brown University, from presenting an abstract that described a case-series of a new pulmonary disease, flock-workers lung, that affected workers at Microfibres Inc. factories. Kern did present the abstract, but under a threat, never carried out, of law-suit, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island removed Kern as head of the Occupational Medicine program, and refused to renew his contract, even though he was an Associate Professor. Brown University was unable to reverse these moves by the hospital, and Brown officials blamed Kern for signing an agreement to protect trade secrets, even though the agreement was unrelated to the research Kern did on the disease, and his research did not obviously reveal any trade secrets. [1-4]

* In the "Nancy Olivieri case," Apotex, a pharmaceutical company, acted against Dr. Nancy Olivieri for revealing preliminary data from a trial of deferiprone, a chelating agent for the treatment of iron overload in thalassemia, suggesting that the drug was often ineffective in treating iron overload, and appeared to be associated with hepatic fibrosis. Ultimately, a report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers also held that her academic freedom was abridged, in the context of a negotiation between the University of Toronto and Apotex over a large donation, and that the hospital harassed Dr. Olivieri during her dispute with Apotex (link here for report)
 
In the early 21st century, there was a case in the UK with spooky similarites to the present case: at the same university involved in the present case, and with at least one participant in common with that case.  About a year after we started Health Care Renewal, in late 2005, we wrote multiple posts about the complex and unfortunate case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn's attempts to keep a research project honest. Our most recent summary of the case was here. Dr Blumsohn was also doing clinical research on the drug Actonel, again at the University of Sheffield.  He was denied access to the very data he had collected, and to analyses of the data by Procter and Gamble, the then manufacturer of the drug and sponsor of the research.  Dr Blumsohn found that Procter and Gamble seemed to be arranging for ghost-writers to author abstracts about the research based on these hidden analyses.  After he complained to numerous officials at Sheffield, including Dr Richard Eastell, to no avail, he spoke to the press, and thereafter lost his academic position.  The case was just recapped in an interview of Dr Blumsohn published in the British Medical Journal(5).
 
So we seem to have made little progress.  Most clinical research at academic medical institutions is sponsored by firms that make drugs and devices.  The firms try to secure contracts that give them control over most aspects of the research.  Thus, they can determine how the research is designed, implemented, ana analyzed.  If the resulting manipulation still does not yield results that make the firms' products look good, the sponsors can then just suppress them.  Academics who naively think it is their duty to find and disseminate the truth are in jeopardy when they attempt to present or publish results that challenge their research sponsors' vested interests.
 
Suppression of clinical research, however, is bad for patients and honest health care professionals, since it misleads about the benefits and harms of tests and treatments.  Suppression of clinical research dishonors research subjects who volunteer for studies, often at risk to themselves, thinking they may help to advance science and clinical care.  Suppression of clinical research undermines the fundamental mission of academia: to seek out and disseminate the truth.
 
Those who truly want better health care, here in the US and globally, should advocate for clinical research done without the influence of those with vested interests in how the research comes out. 
 
Thanks to an anonymous Health Care Renewal scout who located the Times article. 
 
References


1. DG Kern, RS Crausman, TH Durand et al. Flock worker's lung: chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 261-272. (link here)
2. Shuchman M. Secrecy in science: the flock worker's lung investigation. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 341-344. (link here)
3. Marsh DJ. Intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1317-1318. (link here)
4. Shuchman M. Consequences of blowing the whistle in medical research. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 1013-1015. (link here)
5.  Cyer C. Aubrey Blumsohn: academic who took on industry. Brit Med J 2009; 339:b5293. (link here)

Again, Logical Fallacies in Defense of Conflicts of Interest: a Rebuttal to Rothman et al Appears in JACC

Earlier this year, a remarkable commentary in JAMA suggested major reconsideration of the relationships among professional medical associations (PMAs) and health care corporations.(1) Because of the influence of PMAs on clinical care, education, research, and policy, Rothman et al suggested that these organizations sever most of their financial ties to corporations such as pharmaceutical, device, and biotechnology companies. The authors suggested that the only acceptable payments to PMAs from these companies are those for advertising in publications that is clearly labeled as such, and advertising exhibits in meetings, again that is clearly labeled. Furthermore, the authors suggested that people with current or recent (within the last two years) relationships with such corporations ought not to serve as officers or trustees of PMAs, and ought not to serve on program or practice guideline committees. Rothman et al thus suggested that professional medical associations return to their roots, to be advocates for their physician members, and those members’ core values, not marketers of drugs and devices, and promoters of the interests of health care corporations.

The Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) just published the first rebuttal of Rothman et al to appear in a peer-reviewed journal, written by Dr Alfred A Bove, President of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), one of the more influential PMAs.(2) Dr Bove contended that there is nothing wrong with the current relationships among corporations and PMAs, and PMAs should be free to relate to health care corporations any way they want. Dr Bove also asserted that “the assumptions that lead to ... [Rothman and colleagues’] conclusions can be challenged on many fronts.” However, in my humble opinion, Dr Bove supported these contentions with logical fallacies, rather than evidence and logic.

Appeals to Authority, Fear, and Pity

Early on, Dr Bove used a striking set of appeals to authority. (Note that his relevant quotes below appear in italics.)

“There is no comment about trust or virtue as a characteristic of the medical profession.”

“We are not to be bribed by a cheap pen or a free lunch.”

“The authors' assumptions imply that physicians as a group are not responsible people, yet physicians are among the most responsible professionals.”

These appear to be appeals to the traditional authority of the medical profession. Dr Bove simply asserts that physicians are inherently virtuous and deserving of trust, and thus no one could question the virtue of the profession.

He then compounded these appeals to authority with a veiled appeal to fear.

“The authors' assumption that the worst behavior is the average behavior of all physicians insults the profession.”

As noted below, Rothman et al did not make this assumption, so the appeal in turn rests on a straw man argument. This appears to be an appeal to fear in that an “insulted” profession might be expected to take action, legal or otherwise, to avenge the insult. It also could be a form of an appeal to pity, in that the reader might be inclined to pity the poor “insulted” physicians.

Straw Man Arguments

The bulk of the editorial consisted of a string of straw man arguments. A straw man argument propounds a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of his opponent’s argument, and then attacks it, rather than his opponent’s actual argument.

“The sole source for support of PMAs could only come from government or foundation grants....”

Actually, Rothman et al included membership dues, and by implication, meeting registration fees, journal subscription fees etc as acceptable sources of support.

“The article implies that all physicians who receive support from industry will forever be biased to support the products of the related pharmaceutical or device company.”

Actually, Rothman et al seemed to assume that conflicts of interest might affect someone for up to two years, but not forever. Thus, they suggested that board members should be “conflict free for a 2-year period before assuming the position.”

[The Rothman article] “also implies that industry does not work for the best interests of patients or the better [sic] public good, but only for profit.”

Actually, Rothman et al stated “the pharmaceutical and medical device industries make important contributions to medical progress. Their role in the development and testing of new compounds and instruments is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of disease and disability.”

“First, to assume that physicians would not be responsible for providing the best care for their patients after being associated with an industry study or consultation is inappropriate. The authors cited isolated examples of errant physicians who received large sums of money from industry and then promoted their products. They presume that all physicians are represented by these few—that we all have a price.”

Actually, Rothman et al did not discuss any particular cases of “errant physicians.” What Rothman suggested was that gifts, even of “modest value,” can bias decision making, and that the receipt itself of the gift may itself be influential. However, if even modest gifts have some influence, it is logical that large financial transactions might have major influence.

“Society understands that reward drives innovation, so expecting a financial gain from a commercial medical enterprise is not wrong. In fact, it is the only way that new ideas will move from the laboratory to the public good. Using public funds for manufacture and distribution would add an enormous burden to government costs and, based on past experience, would be unproductive.”

Rothman et al were not remotely suggesting nationalizing the drug and device industries.

“If one of us has an idea for a new device and needs industry to help refine its design, fund its development and manufacture, and establish its value by animal and clinical studies, this process should be honored, not condemned. Will the government fund the development of the next new drug? Would the government have funded the development and manufacture of an implantable pacemaker?”

At the most, Rothman et al recommended not allowing physicians who are paid by companies in conjunction with their development work to serve as top leaders, and on certain committees of PMAs. They never broadly “condemned” physicians who work with industry to develop devices.

“Governments have not shown an interest in funding the development of new drugs and devices. Industry raises the funds, takes the risks, and should reap the rewards for its role in creating a better life for our patients.”

Actually, governments have helped development considerably by funding much of the underlying basic science research. Again, Rothman et were not remotely suggesting nationalization of drug development.

Summarizing the Arguments

So Dr Bove ended up by warning that the suggestions Rothman et al made about reducing institutional conflicts of interest affecting professional medical societies, and individual conflicts of interest affecting their leaders would “destroy the best of what we have in our science and industry,” that is, destroy biomedical and clinical science, and lead to nationalization of important forms of medical production. None of that was suggested or implied by Rothman et al. After positing this dire future, Dr Bove then asserted that professional societies ought to be entitled to money from industry limited only by their “professionalism.” Thus, “industry should be able to support unbiased programs aimed at educating physicians and other health care providers about the therapies available for the care of their patients. Professional societies should be able to receive unconditional educational grants to provide up-to-date information to their members on medical therapies.” Furthermore, “the proper relationships should allow us to work with industry and allow our professional societies to receive undesignated funds from industry to foster better patient care.” So, Dr Bove wound up where he started, asserting that doctors and professional societies are inherently virtuous, and thus should be trusted to do whatever they think is right, without any external scrutiny or accountability. Yet he never demonstrated the virtue of the ACC under his leadership, or of PMAs in general, or showed why they should be trusted.

Why did the president of one of the nation’s most important medical associations publicly make such poor arguments to support his organization's current financial relationships with health care corporations? I can only speculate, but there may be some clues found by looking at what is publicly known about the current relationships of the ACC and its leaders to health care corporations.

Publicly Disclosed Relationships Among the ACC and Its Leaders and Health Care Corporations

My sources for these clues were a report on the ACC web-site on its relationships with health care corporations (through 2007), and the form 990s that the ACC is and the highly related ACC Foundation are required to file with the US Internal Revenue Service. (The form 990s are publicly available from GuideStar with a free membership. The ACC form is here, the ACCF, here.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it turns out that the ACC gets a large proportion of its income from industry. In 2007, it acknowledged receiving $35,882,095.15 from industry. The largest categories of industry support were "promotional/quality program support," $12,664,650; "charitable contributions," $7,603,639; and "exhibits" at meetings, $7,318,807; and "educational grants," $5,084,600. The total revenues of the ACC (which include the ACC Foundation), were $94,560,000, so that industry support accounted for 38% of total revenue. These figures should be compared to the revenue the society received from membership dues (found on its 990 form), $11,995,056, and the income it claimed from its annual scientific session, $8,400,632. So to put it another way, the ACC got about three times as much money from industry as it got from its members' dues, and almost twice as much money from industry as it got from dues and its annual meeting combined.

So were the suggestions made by Rothman et al to be implemented by the ACC, it would stand to lose at least $28 million a year (given that in 2007, about $1 million of its industry revenue was from advertising , and about $ 7.3 million was from exhibits at meetings.)

The organization's lavish revenues have allowed it to pay its full-time managers very well. In 2007, its CEO received $534,452 in total compensation; its general counsel, about $394,000; and its CFO, about $336,000. It seems obvious that were the organization to foreswear industry revenue, the organization's top full-time managers would be unable to continue to live in the style to which they are now accustomed to.

In addition, the organization's form 990 reveals that it pays its supposedly voluntary officers and some of its trustees substantial amounts as well. In 2007, it paid its president $147,750; its president-elect, $80,000; its two immediate past presidents, $79,500 and $70,000; its vice president (at that time, Dr Bove), $63,751; its treasurer, $32,500; its secretary for the board of governors, $52,500; its board of governors chair-elect, $25,000; its immediate past board of governors chair, $25,000; and some trustees amounts from $1000 to $20,520.

To my knowledge, it is unusual for a professional society to pay salaries to its voluntary officers (as opposed to full-time, hired managers.) However, given that the ACC does, it seems that were the organization to foreswear industry revenue, its officers' personal income might be threatened to some extent.

Finally, Dr Bove has his own personal financial relationships with industry. Some were disclosed because of his role on ACCs Cardiosource editorial board, including "Consultant Fees/Honoraria: Insight Telehealth Inc,""Research/Research Grants: Astella Pharma, INC," and "Royalty Income: Elsevier." In addition, in a 2008 article(3), he disclosed receiving speakers fees from Medical Seminars, Inc, and serving as a consultant to Vasocom Inc. For a 2009 conference, he also disclosed "modest" equity interests in Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and Merck.

So, in summary, it seems that the ACC gets a very substantial portion of its revenue from health care corporations, and that were it to carry out the suggestions of Rothman et al, it would lose much of that revenue. Thus, it is not surprising that ACC leadership would take exception to Rothman and colleagues' point of view. This is not the first time that an ACC president has defeneded the organization's dependence on industry funding (see post here). However, as I said in that post,

My questions are how could a society which requires such a substantial proportion, 38% of funding from commercial sponsors ignore the preferences of the sponsors for particular topics and content areas? How could such a society dare to allow criticism of the sponsors, their products, or their activities? Knowing that the society is dependent on this level of support, could society leaders really hold industry representatives at arms' length? Knowing that industry supplies more than one-third of their salaries, would society staff really keep industry outside of some bureaucratic, but not concrete 'firewall?'

In addition, it now seems the ostensibly voluntary officers of the ACC may have a personal stake in the ACCs receipt of health care corporate funding, since it is the apparent policy of the organization to pay these officers five- and six-figure salaries. Dr Bove did not disclose this apparent conflict of interest, nor did he disclose his other personal financial relationships with industry. As we have noted before, people with conflicts of interest tend to have trouble making coherent, logical and evidence-based arguments for positions related to their conflicts. As Joe Collier wrote in the BMJ, "people who have conflicts of interest often find giving clear advice (or opinions) particularly difficult. "(4)

In any case, a previous ACC president wrote about the importance of "disclosure" and "transparency" in dealing with conflicts of interest. Whether disclosure of conflicts is sufficient to manage them, at least Dr Bove could have done the courtesy of disclosing that he is actually a salaried employee of the ACC, and disclosing his personal financial relationships with industry so that readers could try to evaluate how these financial entanglements might have affected what he wrote.

Summary

In conclusion, the first published rebuttal of Rothman and colleagues' suggestions for ensuring the independence of professional medical associations from outside vested interests was not based on evidence, but on logical fallacies rather than clear reasoning, and failed to disclose its authors' relevant financial relationships. We will see if anyone can make a better attempt.

ADDENDUM (17 July, 2009) - see additional comments by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

ADDENDUM (22 July, 2009) - see this post on the Cardiobrief blog, which alludes to the post above, but also discusses an interesting response by the CEO of the ACC to the Rothman paper, and adds original commentary on larger issues.


References

1. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367-1372. (Link here.)
2. Bove AA. President's page: relations with industry: thoughts on claims of a broken system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 177-179. (Link here.)
3. Somers VK, White DP, Amin R et al. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease: an American Heart Association/ American College of Cardiology Foundation scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research Professional Education Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke Council, and Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 2008; 118: 1080-1111. (Link here.)
4. Collier J. The price of independence. Br Med J 2006; 332: 1447-9. (Link here.)

Pharmacy Benefit Managers as Pharmaceutical Marketers

We posted a number of times about questionable practices Eli Lilly used to market its atypical anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa (olanzapine). A post from 2007, with links backward, is here, and our most recent post is here. The company remains entangled in litigation over its marketing of this drug. That litigation has lead to the release of numerous internal documents that provide quite a view of Lilly's marketing practices. Bloomberg continued its reporting on these documents, with its latest effort here via the Boston Globe, describing yet another surprising way this drug was sold:

A unit of CVS Caremark Corp. used its access to doctors to market Eli Lilly & Co.'s Zyprexa antipsychotic while it was under contract to bargain with the drug maker on behalf of health insurers, internal Lilly files disclosed in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit by insurers show.

The subsidiary of CVS, the largest US drugstore chain, touted Zyprexa starting in 2003, according to e-mails made public by lawyers suing Lilly for overpayment. CVS's AdvancePCS, a pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, offered to send 120,000 letters to doctors promoting the drug, Lilly's top-seller with $4.7 billion in sales last year, according to a confidential 2004 proposal. The CVS unit said it would charge $5 per letter.

AdvancePCS, acquired by Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS in 2007, said in the documents that the direct-mail campaign was 'designed to influence key prescribers' as part of a 'tactical plan for Zyprexa.'

Furthermore,

In AdvancePCS's 2004 pitch to Lilly offering to send out letters promoting Zyprexa, Kevin Aholt, the company's assistant vice president in charge of strategic alliances, said he could target physicians based 'on the most recent AdvancePCS claims data,' according to the unsealed documents.

Aholt also said that one of the 'key issues' in the market for antipsychotic drugs was finding ways to 'accelerate the growth of new patient starts,' according to the proposal.

Also,

Steven Fuchs, an official at the PBM, asked Lilly officials in an April 2004 e-mail whether he should include information about Zyprexa's ability to calm agitated patients in the next round of letters to doctors.

'Would a discussion of that be something you would want to include?' Fuchs asked, according to the document.

Lilly marketing executive Scott Dell responded in an e-mail that officials at the drug maker had discussed asking AdvancePCS to include material highlighting 'the new bipolar maintenance indication for Zyprexa.'

AdvancePCS was not the only pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) that offered to help sell Zyprexa.

CVS rival Express Scripts Inc. also sent out Zyprexa marketing letters, according to the unsealed documents and also isn't named as a defendant in the suits.

So here we have at least two pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) offering to help market a particular drug, for money, of course. What is the problem here?

CVS's contracts with insurers and pensions meanwhile place it in an adversarial posture with Lilly, requiring it to use its buying power as leverage in drug-price negotiations.

'The problem is that PBMs are negotiating these hidden deals while at the same time telling employers that they represent them at the negotiating table,' said Gerry Purcell, a former PBM executive who advises companies on their drug plans. 'These documents will add fuel to the perception that the companies and the PBMs are in cahoots with each other.'

Also,

While PBMs negotiate on behalf of insurers, most states don't designate them as agents of the benefit plans, said Robert Garis, a pharmacy professor at Creighton University in Omaha who studies the industry. As a result, they aren't legally required to act only in the best interest of their clients, he said. Maine is one of a few states that have specified PBMs as fiduciaries, or agents, he noted.

'The companies have gotten around that by adding language to their contracts that exclude them from having to meet those fiduciary duties,' Garis said.

Apparently, in this case, one PBM said it disclosed its relationship to the drug company to physicians, but it is not clear whether it was disclosed to the health care insurers and managed care organizations which paid the PBM to reduce the costs of drugs:

CVS, which isn't a defendant in the Lilly suit, said that it tells doctors when it has 'financial relationships' with drug makers and that they are free to opt out of mailings.

'To engage in a point/counterpoint in a media outlet rather than in court would not be productive,' said Lilly spokeswoman Marni Lemons.

Lemons declined to answer specific queries about the CVS or Express Scripts letters, whether Lilly paid for the practice, or other questions raised by the unsealed documents....

CVS said in its e-mailed statement that it has 'no active educational programs' related to Zyprexa.

'CVS Caremark discloses to its PBM clients that it may have financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with these educational programs,' said Christine Cramer, a spokeswoman for the chain. 'CVS Caremark's PBM clients are aware of these programs and have the opportunity to opt out.'

Maria Palumbo, a spokeswoman for Express Scripts, didn't respond to eight telephone and e-mail requests seeking comment.

CVS covers 82 million people, with a market share of 12 percent, and is the largest pharmacy benefit manager, according to Atlantic Information Services. Express Scripts, which covers 55 million people, is the fifth largest. PBMs process about 75 percent of the retail prescriptions written annually in the United States, according to the insurance plans.

The insurance plans sued the drug maker in 2005, contending it used researchers, pharmacy benefit managers, advocacy groups, and public agencies to promote Zyprexa.

Whether or not the PBMs disclosed their relationships to the pharmaceutical company to everyone who might be interested, it does seem that having PBMs who are supposed to help insurers and managed care organizations control drug costs be paid by pharmaceutical companies to market drugs is yet another new species of institutional conflict of interest. Like the many other conflicts of interest, individual and institutional, we have discussed, this one appears to be mutually advantageous to the parties involved. However, it could have adverse consequences for physicians, patients, and the health care system. If the organizations that are supposed to be controlling drug costs are also promoting expensive drugs, the likely result would be excess prescription of expensive drugs to patients who may not derive benefits from the drugs outweighing their harms.

This is another reminder how much we need more sunshine shone on the multitudinous conflicts of interest affecting just about every type of actor within the current US health care system.

A Letter from the RUC, and My Reply

The vast amounts spent in the US on health care have not translated into access for many patients, consistently excellent quality of care, and signiticantly improved outcomes. While we spend all this money, the primary care and generalist practitioners on the front lines are increasingly embattled and disgruntled, and their numbers are rapidly thinning. One problem may be the pattern of fees paid to physicians. Fees paid to physicians not only influence costs directly, but provide incentives for physician decision making about what tests and treatments patients receive. We have posted several times, most recently in February, 2009, here, about how the US Medicare system sets fees paid to physicians.

Since health care reform is now a hot topic in the US, there has been increasing discussion of the plight of primary care and generalist practitioners, but little consideration of how it arose. What we wrote in February was (with updated links):

As we have discussed, the US Medicare system determines what it pays physicians using the Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS). This system determines the pay for every kind of medical encounter according to a complex formula that is supposed to account for physicians' time and effort, physicians' practice expense, and the cost of malpractice insurance. The components of physicians' effort assessed are, in turn, technical skill and physical effort; the required mental effort and judgment; and stress due to the potential risk to the patient.

To keep the system, which was started in 1990, current, requires addition of new kinds of encounters, which means encounters involving new kinds of procedures, and updating of the estimates of various components, including physicians' time and effort. To do so, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group.

This opaque and unaccountable process has resulted in increases outstripping inflation in fees paid for procedures, while fees paid for "cognitive" medicine, i.e., for primary care, and for services that involve diagnosis, management of acute and chronic disease, counseling, coordination of care, etc, but not procedures, have lagged inflation. The effects of the RUC have been amplified by the unexplained tendency of commercial managed care and health insurance to track the RBRVS system when making their own payments to physicians.

For further details about the RUC, see these posts on Health Care Renewal (here, here, here, here, and here) and important articles by Bodenheimer et al,(1) and Goodson.(2) By the way, why the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies de facto exclusively on the RUC to control the RBRVS system, and why the AMA made the RUC into a secret organization apparently beholden only to the organization's proceduralist members are unanswered questions.

The next month, Dr William L Rich III, and Dr Barbary Levy, the Chair and Chair-Elect of the RUC, wrote me a letter to "point out several blatant inaccuracies within your blog entry that severely misrepresent the nature and work of the AMA / Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC)." They then asked me to "retract or correct the inaccurate statements within the aforementioned blog immediately." However, the letter did not specify the supposedly inaccurate statements within the blog post. So, my email response noted that "the letter contains no detail about the alleged 'inaccurate statements.' If you define them, we will certainly consider your views." I never got a reply to this message, therefore thinking the matter to be closed, and I saw at that time no reason to make the exchange public.

Apparently, the matter was not closed. A few days ago, two anonymous comments were appended to the post. They stated that my letter had appeared on the AMA web-site, here. So it is now public. The comments did not say, and I have so far not been able to find out when the letter was posted, and what its context is within the AMA web-site, including any indication that I had already replied to it in private.

Despite these irregularities, however, given that the AMA apparently has chosen to make the letter public, I believe I ought to respond publicly.

"Blatant Inaccuracies?"

Dr Rich and Dr Levy wrote:

We would like to take this opportunity to point out several blatant inaccuracies within your blog entry that severely misrepresent the nature and work of the AMA / Specialty Society RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). We request you retract or correct the inaccurate statements within the aforementioned blog immediately.

First, as I noted above, the letter never specified which of my statements the letter writers considered "blatant inaccuracies." If there are any specific statements of fact in the post above (or any other post I write) that can be shown to be inaccurate, I will correct or retract them. However, I do not believe the letter by Dr Rich and Dr Levy demonstrated any particular statements of mine to be blatantly inaccurate.

The Obscurity of the RUC Membership

The letter stated:

The RUC does not operate in the shadows.

One of my major criticisms of the RUC was that it is opaque. Before I wrote my first post on the RUC, I tried to determine its membership by searching the AMA web-site, easily available AMA publications, and the web. I could find lists of past members, but no current list. In addition, I asked RUC staff by email whether they could provide me the list, or an easy way to access it. They would or could not do so, and the highest ranking staffer I contacted wrote, "we do not give out the RUC members' contact information. We attempt to shield the RUC from lobbying by industry or others." Only after these inquiries did I dub the RUC membership "secret."

Dr Rich and Dr Levy suggested that it is not quite secret. It stated that "a list of the individual members of the RUC is published in the AMA publication, Medicare RBRVS 2009: The Physicians Guide." This publication is available from the AMA here for a mere $71.95. However, the book is not on the web, or in my local or university library, and I have no other way to easily access it.

Additionally, although the letter stated, "any individual may solicit AMA staff directly or a specialty society to learn the names of the members of the RUC," the letter was not accompanied by any communication from AMA staff containing this information.

Thus, to date, I still do not know who the members of the RUC are. If the letter authors had wanted to show that the membership of the RUC was not meant to be obscure, they could easily have sent me the list with their letter, appended a copy of the pages of the book which contained the list, or asked their staff to provide this information. They chose not to do so. So, while the RUC membership may not be exactly secret, it remains obscure, only barely public, and relatively inaccessible.

The Secrecy of RUC Proceedings

Furthermore, to support its contention that "the RUC does not operate in the shadows," the letter stated that

any individual may attend a RUC meeting upon: (1) the invitation of and notification by a relevant specialty society; (2) an express invitation by the chair of the RUC; or (3) the approval of a written request to attend; and a review of conflicts and potential conflicts of interest.

This does not mean that RUC meetings are open, or that their proceedings are public. Instead, as Goodson(2) noted, RUC "meetings are closed to outside observers except by invitation of the chair." Furthermore, he stated, "proceedings are proprietary and therefore not publicly available for review."

The letter also personally invited me to attend "the next meeting of the RUC, which will take place April 23-26, 2009 in Chicago." In retrospect, this invitation did not appear serious, since it was never repeated or expanded after my email reply to the March letter.

Nor did the invitation include any assurance that I could make anything about this meeting public. I had learned from a previous RUC attendee who will remain anonymous that attendees are obligated to sign non-disclosure agreements. Signing such an agreement might jeopardize my further ability to write anything of substance about the RUC. Furthermore, making all meeting attendees sign non-disclosure agreements effectively makes the meeting secret.

The RUC and Primary Care

Dr Rich and Dr Levy asserted that:

Your publication irrationally and unreasonably paints the RUC as the perpetrator of all physician payment policies that have negatively affected primary care.

Furthermore, they argued that the RUC has been good for primary care and cognitive practice:

The RUC has made several recommendations that positively benefit cognitive and non-procedural physician specialties.

My opinions about the RUC's influence on payments to physicians, and the decline of primary care and generalist and cognitive practice are hardly original. My previous posts were clearly based on evidence and discussion from references 1-4. Let me summarize these arguments, using direct quotes from these references, which perusal of the original articles would reveal are not taken out of context.

Primary and generalist practice is threatened by the current payment system.

From Bodenheimer et al(1):

Incomes of primary care physicians are well below those of many specialists, and the primary care–specialty income gap is widening.

... the lower income of primary care physicians is a major factor leading U.S. medical students to reject primary care careers.

Primary care practice is not viable without a substantial increase in the resources available to primary care physicians.

From Goodson(2):

Medicine's generalist base is disappearing as a consequence of the reimbursement system crafted to save it—the resource-based relative value scale.

Current reimbursement incentives substantially favor procedures and technical interventions and offer financial advantages for expensive care, thereby encouraging specialty services.

The continued and sustained incentives for medical graduates to choose higher-paying specialty careers and for those physicians in specialty careers to increase income through highly compensated professional activities have been associated with the dwindling of the generalist workforce. The lack of incentives for medical graduates to choose generalist careers in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics has had a profound effect on the workforce mix and, ultimately, US health care expenditures.

The RUC has been the major influence on the physician payment system leading to these problems.

From Bodenheimer et al(1):

In summary, the RUC process favors increases in procedural and imaging reimbursement for 3 reasons: specialty society influence in proposing RVU increases, the specialist-heavy RUC membership, and the desire of RUC specialists to avoid increases in evaluation and management RVUs. With their ability to create new codes and influence RVU updates, many procedural specialists can influence fees in a way that observers find to substantially overvalue procedural and imaging services. Moreover, high fees may encourage physicians to increase the volume of profitable services, leading to even higher income gains and greater spending growth.

From Goodson(2):

The RUC has powerfully influenced CMS decision making and, as a result, is a powerful force in the US medical economy. Furthermore, by creating and maintaining incentives for more and more specialty care and by failing to accurately and continuously assess the practice expense RVUs, the decisions of CMS have fueled health care inflation. Doing so has affected the competitiveness of US corporations in the global market by contributing to years of double-digit health care inflation that have consistently increased the costs of manufacturing and business in the United States over the last decades.

The current mechanism fails to provide sufficient checks and balances and is skewed and dysfunctional.

The resource-based relative value scale system originally developed to achieve full value for cognitive services currently threatens the sustainability of the generalist base. As a result, a large portion of the population will lose access to the continuous and personalized care provided by generalist physicians whose repertoire of clinical skills and interventions coupled with access to specialty and diagnostic services are essential for ensuring efficient and effective health care delivery.

Dr Rich and Dr Levy are entitled to their opinions, but I would argue that there is considerable evidence and opinion suggesting that the current dysfunctional physician payment system is a major cause of the decline of primary care and cognitive practice, and simultaneous rise in health care costs and decline in health care access in the US. Furthermore, there is also considerable evidence and opinion suggesting that the RUC has singular responsbility for the dysfunctionality of the payment system and how it is skewed in favor of procedures as opposed to cognitive services and primary care.

Summarizing: the Opacity of the RUC, and its Negative Effects on Primary Care and Cognitive Services

So, I stand by my statement that the RUC process is opaque. Instead of saying "the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group," I would be willing to now say, "the identities of the RUC members are obscure and difficult to ascertain, and the proceedings of the group are secret." That is not much of an improvement.

If the RUC leadership wants to make its membership transparent, all it needs to do is post it on the web. If it wishes to make its proceedings transparent, all it needs to do is publish them as well. If it makes such changes, I would happily and publicly applaud them.

If the RUC leadership wants to show that their members are not influenced by individual conflicts of interest, transparency about the committee's membership would inspire more trust than making the information as obscure as possible.

Furthermore, there may be more reason to be concerned about the effects of institutional rather than individual conflicts of interest on the RUC. Most RUC members appear to represent specialty societies. Rothman et al claimed that industry funding of professional medical societies is "pervasive."(5) If the RUC leadership wants to show that their committee as a whole is not affected by institutional conflicts of interest of its specialty societies, it ought at least to disclose the relationships of those societies and their leaders with companies that stand to profit from increasing utilization of the specific services whose use is influenced by the incentives which the RUC largely determines.

Finally, if there is a "wedge between cognitive and procedural specialties" it was driven a long time ago, particularly by a payment system that progressively favored the latter over the former, and by a bureaucratic burden that fell disproportionately on the former. But blaming the messenger is a time-honored, if not necessarily honorable tactic.

References

1. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. Link here.
2. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. Link here.
3. Ginsburg PB, Berenson RA. Revising Medicare's physician fee schedule - much activity, little change. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1201-1203.
4. Newhouse JP. Medicare spending on physicians - no easy fix in sight. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1883-1884.
5. 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: 1367-1372. Link here.

Another Industry-Supported Physician Defends Industrial Support of Medical Societies

The President of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), W Douglas Weaver MD, has written a second editorial on relationships between the ACC and industry, continuing medical education, and conflicts of interest. In his first editorial [ Weaver WD. President's page: disclosures, transparency, and firewalls protect integrity. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52(11): 964-965. Subscription required.] his major points were:

Major activities of the ACC require industry funding - "the Annual Scientific Session would not be possible in its current form if it were not for industry grants and fees from the Exposition."

"Firewalls" provided by the society prevent influence by industry on educational or scientific programs -

Let me assure you that we have very strong firewalls around industry support.

As part of our firewall structure, the College has long-established policies that require strict segregation between the source of commercial support and the use of industry funding. The College adheres to internal and external policies that prohibit companies that provide support from exercising any influence or control over programmatic content, speaker/faculty selection, program format, planning, partnering arrangements, program evaluation methods, and related matters.

Most of the College's commercial support from pharmaceutical and medical device/equipment companies is used for a new or ongoing initiative. For example, the College may solicit support for an educational program on the management of patients with congenital heart disease. Commercial support, in cases such as this, is dedicated or directed to that special objective but with the contractual understanding by the supporter that they will have no influence on how the College uses the funds to support the objective. Unlike unrestricted educational or charitable grants, directed funds are restricted to the designated objective, but the College determines how to use them in accomplishing the objective.

My comment is that is well and good, but it is possible for financial sponsors to exert subtle pressure that such firewalls would not prevent. Sponsors are likely to support educational activities which address topics which can fulfill marketing objectives. In particular, it is often in the interests of such sponsors to highlight, or exaggerate the prevalence of a disease which the sponsor's product can be used to diagnose or treat; to emphasize, or over-emphasize the importance of that disease; and to emphasize, or over-emphasize the benefits and deemphasize the harms of treating the disease. Presentations and publications which have such effects can help the sponsor's marketing objectives, without making crass, overt pitches for its products. It is likely that a professional society which needs substantial support from commercial sponsors will somehow end up providing educational and research presentations that help, or at least do not conflict with sponsors' marketing objectives. It is also likely that a society which needs such support will rarely provide presentations that are critical of these sponsors, their products, and their actions.

In a second article just out [Weaver WD. President's page: understanding the implications of conflict of interest issues. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52(15): 1274-1275] Dr Weaver quantified the amount of support the ACC gets from industry, and again advocated such support as necessary:

Many of you are probably aware that industry supports a broad array of College activities including professional education, quality programs, the Annual Scientific Session Expo, and digital products through educational and other types of grants. This support, which constitutes about 38% of the College's revenues, enables the College to provide programs that we would otherwise not be able to offer. In addition, without this support, the registration fees for the Annual Scientific Session and i2 Summit would have to be more than double their present amount, and member dues would have to increase significantly.

My questions are how could a society which requires such a substantial proportion, 38% of funding from commercial sponsors ignore the preferences of the sponsors for particular topics and content areas? How could such a society dare to allow criticism of the sponsors, their products, or their activities? Knowing that the society is dependent on this level of support, could society leaders really hold industry representatives at arms' length? Knowing that industry supplies more than one-third of their salaries, would society staff really keep industry outside of some bureaucratic, but not concrete "firewall?"

Actually, it was not clear why so much external support was really necessary. The argument was not that the College could not continue its activities without the support. It was, instead, that the College would have to increase membership dues and meeting fees to do so. Perhaps College members would be willing to pay more to continue these activities to questions about industry influence on them? If College members, however, would not think that these activities are not worthy of their support via dues and fees, maybe these activities are not so important after all?

At the end of this first editorial, Dr Weaver declared:

The College does everything possible to ensure that our scientific and educational activities are protected from conflict of interest. Disclosure, transparency, and secure firewalls between commercial support and program content and implementation enable us to use such funding for education and other programs aimed at improving the quality of care to patients without sacrificing our integrity.

I would urge him to reconsider that. I do not have sufficient time or resources to scrutinize all the activities of the College, but I would not be surprised if an impartial assessment might show that they may tend to emphasize clinical areas most of interest to the College's commercial sponsors, while perhaps slighting other areas that are not of interest to them, but are still important to patient care. They may also want to take a skeptical look to see if these activities really are fully balanced in their assessment of the harms and benefits of sponsors' products and activities.

For example, a while back, we posted about an ACC statement that patients taking ezetimibe for cholesterol reduction should continue to take the drug after a controversy about a study which failed to show that the drug had any benefits. At that time, ezetimibe had never been shown to have any clear benefits on clinical outcomes, that is, it had never been shown to decrease symptoms, improve function, prevent morbid events, or prolong life. So why would the ACC advocate that patients continue to take a drug which may do no good? Could it have to do with previous funding the society had received from a company that makes the drug?


Finally, I urge Dr Weaver to take to heart his vigorous defense of transparency and disclosure. As noted above, he has now written two editorials that defend the substantial industry funding his organization receives, and deny the possibility that the large infusion of money could possibly affect organizational decision making. Yet in these editorials he did not disclose any of his own relationships with industry, which appear to be not insubstantial.

Several papers which he authored in the last few years disclosed that he had apparently significant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

• Mahaffey KW, Granger CB, Nicolau JC et al. Effect of pexelizumab, an anti-C5 complement antibody, as adjunctive therapy in fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Circ 2003; 108: 1176-1183. Subscription required. This disclosed "Drs Mahaffey, Granger, Nicolau, Ruzyllo, Weaver, Theroux, Hochman, and Armnstrong have received consultation fees and/or research grants from Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals and Alexion Pharmaceuticals."
• Hudson MP, Armstrong PW, Ruzyllo W et al. Effects of selective matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor (PG-116800) to prevent ventricular modeling after myocardial infarction: results of the PREMIER (prevention of myocardial infarction early remodeling) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 15-20. Subscription required. This disclosed "this study was funded by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals...." Furthermore, "Drs Ruzyllo, Quinones, Theroux, and Weaver received consultancy fees for participating on PREMIER Trial Expert Panel."
• The APEX AMI Investigators. Pexelizumab for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007; 297: 43-51. Dr Weaver was listed as a member of "authors and steering committee members." The paper disclosed "members of the Steering Committee received honoraria for their participation." "The study was jointly funded by Procter & Gamble and Alexion Pharmaceuticals."
• Prisant LM, Thomas KL, Lewis EF et al. Racial analysis of patients with myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure an/or left ventricular dysfunction treated with valsartan, captopril or both. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:1865-1871. Subscription required. It disclosed "all of the authors have received grant support or consulting fees from the sponsor of the VALIANT (VALsartin in Acute myocardial iNfarcTion) study, Novartis, as well as from multiple other manufacturers of cardiovascular drugs."

In addition, a recent news articles in which Dr Weaver was interviewed also disclosed relationships with industry. This MedPage Today 2008 article disclosed "Dr Waver declared grant support from Proctor and Gamble and Schering-Plough and equity or stock interest in Acorn Cardiovascular."

So Dr Weaver seems to be another in a series of defenders of financial ties between physicians and medical societies and industry written by people who fail to disclose their own personal financial ties to industry. Perhaps having one's own cozy relationships with industry makes it hard to realize why people without such relationships may see them as a source of influence, if not outright bias. For other recent examples of stealth health policy advocacy, see this and this (which involved Dr Weaver's colleague, the editor of the JACC.)

I would submit that if medical societies want to avoid questions about their integrity, they ought to find ways to fund their activities through their members' dues and contributions, and without lavish contributions from industry, supposed "firewalls" notwithstanding.