Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
Janus-Like Opposing Views Becoming Contentious
[By Staff Reporters]
According to Tracy Staton, the Journal of the American Medical Association may be fighting to keep long-running internal arguments over conflicts-of-interest with big pharma a secret. But, in public, it’s advocating strict limits on industry funding for medical associations.
JAMA Proposals
A set of proposals published recently in JAMA, calls for associations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, to refuse general budget support from drug and device companies. Currently, many specialty physicians’ groups are partly funded by industry. Companies also sponsor conferences, physician fellowships and buy ads in the societies’ journals. The proposed guidelines would allow associations to continue to accept industry advertising and to allow industry-sponsored booths at conferences.
Distinction
The key distinction, the article’s lead author said, is that ads and booths are clearly presenting a company’s point of view. “You can read the ads, skip the ads, but there’s nothing hidden,” David J. Rothman, a professor at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University, told the Wall Street Journal. “What I don’t like is when I can’t tell if what I’m hearing is science, or marketing in the guise of science.”
Opposing Viewpoints
But others disagree. For example, the American College of Cardiology’s chief allegedly told the paper that industry funding has “zero impact on the content of any program here.” And PhRMA said that the guidelines could limit the information doctors receive. “It’s important to realize that [doctors] have their own sense of integrity,” a PhRMA spokeswoman.
Assessment
ME-P publisher, Dr. David Edward Marcinko, on the other hand, believes that Columbia University’s torturous verbal parsing is
“merely a distinction with little substantive difference.”
Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854648226076095.html
Conclusion
And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated? Do you agree with the current – but aging medical establishment – or the emerging generation of young and idealistic medical students and physicians who increasingly abhor the big-pharma practices? Is this another example of tawdry JAMA censorship? Is the AMA running away from its moral ethos of professional integrity?
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com
Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:
Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759
Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790
Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421
Subscribe Now:Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Share this:
Filed under: "Doctors Only", Breaking News, Drugs and Pharma, Ethics, Health Law & Policy, Op-Editorials | Tagged: AMA, American College Cardiology, American Society of Clinical Oncologists, big-pharma, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, David J. Rothman, david marcinko, drug companies, hope hetico, JAMA, Journal American Medical Association, pharmaceutical companies, PhRMA, WSJ |
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 
On Ghost-Writing and JAMA
The blame goes far beyond big-pharama and others. Journal editors and the authors themselves bear responsibility.
Snyder
LikeLike
How Sad!
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s John Fauber reported that the University of Wisconsin’s proposed conflict-of-interest rules have been heavily watered down with the addition of an exception for doctors, including orthopedic surgeons, who implant devices.
This is the group of doctors who tend to bring in significant amounts of money for the university and thus tend to be rather influential. How about that!
http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/10/u-of-wisconsin-conflict-of-interest-policy-gutted/
Lee
LikeLike
Conflicts Of Interest In Guideline Development
[A Dirty Little Secret Gets Aired Again]
An Archives of Internal Medicine article (“Conflicts of Interest in Cardiovascular Clinical Practice Guidelines”) is getting a lot of notice today. In essence, many of the physicians who develop guideline that influence practice patterns and payment decisions have conflicts.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/171/6/577
The authors recommend only allowing those without conflicts to write the guidelines.
Gail
LikeLike
American Medical News ceases publication after 55-year run
Unsustainable financial losses forced the move despite the newspaper’s editorial quality.
http://www.amednews.com/article/20130902/profession/130909983/1/
The paper won more than 60 journalism awards in the last decade.
Zellar
LikeLike
Fake Medical Study Accepted, Published by Journals
[The Opposite of Censorship]
A fake study that was accepted at dozens of medical journals for a fee has experts worried that lax oversight of published studies could affect the health of patients searching for medical answers online.
The fake paper was written by John Bohannon, a science journalist who received his doctorate in molecular biology at the University of Oxford. Bohannon submitted the paper to 302 open-access medical journals as an experiment over 10 months.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/10/14/online-medical-journals-accept-fake-study-could-the-public-be-hurt/?utm_source=Copy+of+Copy+of+Copy+of+Copy+of+10.8.13&utm_campaign=11713&utm_medium=email
The results of Bohannon’s experiment were published in Science, a peer-reviewed general science publication that charges subscription fees.
Ann Miller RN MHA
LikeLike