- Image via Wikipedia
The transformation of a tough 13-page conflict of interest policy into a streamlined two-page version at the University of Minnesota Medical School show how hard it can be to separate industry from academia, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
The initial draft included a provision that required clinical trials subjects to be enrolled by patient advocates as opposed to doctors involved in the study. A particularly controversial change involved a portion that eliminated industry funding for continuing medical education classes.
Originally, the policy would have ended industry support within five years. The new version permits the funding under the rules of a national accrediting organization, according to the newspaper.
“We have no alternative source of funding for it,” Medical School Dean Dr. Deborah Powell told the paper. “As the economy worsens, a lot of the people who take our courses can’t afford to pay the tuition. Our courses are attended by nurses, pharmacists, physicians, and people felt we couldn’t raise the tuition.
“I wish a lot of the controversy had not happened, because I think this process was really important for the school, its faculty and the students,” she said. “But I think we’ve arrived at a good place.”
Other stories worth a read:
- U.S. scientists follow yellow brick roads overseas (Lens)
- Wichita State receives $250K commitment for dentistry program (Wichita Business Journal)
- The American Medical Student Association gets an F in science based medicine (Notes from Dr. R W)
- White House Health Care Summit a ‘dog and pony show’ (Doctor Anonymous)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ae7a1095-0ca5-482c-bc18-f42a73c1d303)
By Chris Seper MedCity News
Chris Seper is the CEO at MedCity Media, which publishes MedCityNews.com. He is also a senior writer at MedCity News. Reach him at chris@medcitynews.com.More posts by Author
Thanks so much for the link!
It is good that public consciousness has been raised regarding potential conflicts of interest that physicians may have. If one examines the approval and study process of developing drugs and devices it becomes abundantly clear that care providers and instutitions rely too heavily on the funds that industry provides. The push for expedited approval so that companies may get a quick return on investment places individuals atrisk. Until we as a nation investigate the depth and breadth of this problem and implement measures to reduce the influence of business over medical decisions this problem will not end. A comprehensive analysis of the ways that research is funded in this country is long overdue. In other countries, where research is funded by the public there is less descrimination in research. In the US where industry funds the majority of research only populations that are likely to yield a high return on investment are studied. An example of this is the startling fact that only 20% of drugs used in children are approved for use in children. Efforts have been made at changing that paradigm but are easily circumvented by the industry. Instead of conducting a study to determine if an entiepileptic drug is safe for children the industry has chosen instead to study the same drug under a different name for use as a weight loss drug. Why? Because the weight loss drug is likely to yield higher profits. There are countless examples of this. The US needs to examine closely the influence of industry in healthcare.