Conflicts of interest are rampant in the American medical community. Today it is not uncommon for doctors to refer patients to clinics or labs in which they have a financial interest (40% of physicians in Florida invest in medical centers); for hospitals to offer incentives to physicians who refer patients (a practice that can lead to unnecessary hospitalization); or for drug companies to provide lucrative give-aways to entice doctors to use their "brand name" drugs (which are much more expensive than (...) generic drugs). In Medicine, Money and Morals, Marc A. Rodwin draws on his own experience as a health lawyer--and his research in health ethics, law, and policy--to reveal how financial conflicts of interest can and do negatively affect the quality of patient care. He shows that the problem has become worse over the last century and provides many actual examples of how doctors' decisions are influenced by financial considerations. We learn how two California physicians, for example, resumed referrals to Pasadena General Hospital only after the hospital started paying $70 per patient (their referrals grew from 14 in one month to 82 in the next). As Rodwin writes, incentives such as this can inhibit a doctor from taking action when a hospital fails to provide proper service, and may also lead to the unnecessary hospitalization of patients. We also learn of a Wyeth-Ayerst Labs promotion in which physicians who started patients on INDERAL (a drug for high blood pressure, angina, and migraines) received 1000 mileage points on American Airlines for each patient (studies show that promotions such as this have a direct effect on a doctor's choice of drug). Rodwin reveals why the medical community has failed to regulate conflicts of interest: peer review has little authority, state licensing boards are usually ignorant of abuses, and the AMA code of ethics has historically been recommended rather than required. He examines what can be learned from the way society has coped with the conflicts of interest of other professionals --lawyers, government officials, and businessmen--all of which are held to higher standards of accountability than doctors. And he recommends that efforts be made to prohibit and regulate certain kinds of activity (such as kickbacks and self-referrals), to monitor and regulate conduct, and to provide penalties for improper conduct. Our failure to face physicians' conflicts of interest has distorted the way medicine is practiced, compromised the loyalty of doctors to patients, and harmed society, the integrity of the medical profession, and patients. For those concerned with the quality of health care or medical ethics, Medicine, Money and Morals is a provocative look into the current health care crisis and a powerful prescription for change. (shrink)

Why do physicians have financial conflicts of interest? They arise because society expects physicians to act in their patients’ interest, while simultaneously, financial incentives encourage physicians to practice medicine in ways that promote their own interests or those of third parties. Because physicians’ clinical choices, referrals, and prescriptions affect the fortune of third parties, these third parties may offer physicians financial incentives to make income-driven clinical choices. In the past, physicians and scholars typically conceived of conflicts of interest as an (...) ethical issue to be resolved according to individual judgment or professional and organizational norms. However, society can mitigate or eliminate conflicts of interest by changing financial and organizational arrangements in medicine. Conflicts of interest, therefore, are as much matters of public policy and management as individual choices or social norms. (shrink)

The federal government indirectly subsidizes the pharmaceutical industry by funding basic research, various tax credits and deductions, patent rules, grants of market exclusivity, and other means, in order to spur drug development, promote public health, and improve medical care. But today, the pharmaceutical industry often neglects these goals and sometimes even undermines them, due to what Lawrence Lessig refers to as institutional corruption — that is, widespread or systemic practices, usually legal, that undermine an institution’s objectives or integrity. A key (...) source of institutional corruption is improper dependence by the institution or its key actors on the actions of third parties that have fundamentally different interests. It is the health care system’s improper dependency on pharmaceutical firms that allows them to displace some public policy goals and to compromise the attainment of others. (shrink)

Improper dependencies slant policy over a drug's life span, biasing the development of new drugs, the testing and marketing approval for new drugs, and the monitoring of patient safety after drugs are marketed. This article examines five ways in which the public improperly depends on pharmaceutical firms that compromise the integrity of pharmaceutical policy. Today the public relies on pharmaceutical firms: (1) to set priorities on drug research and development; (2) to conduct clinical trials to test whether drugs are safe (...) and effective; (3) to decide what clinical trial data to disclose to the public; (4) to monitor post marketing drug safety; (5) to supply product information to physicians and to finance continuing medical education and other professional activities. The article suggests options to overcome each of these dependencies. (shrink)

The Food and Drug Administration authorizes the marketing of a drug only for uses that the manufacturer has demonstrated to be safe and effective, based on evidence from at least two clinical trials. However, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine, so physicians may prescribe drugs in any manner they choose. Prescribing drugs in ways that deviate from the uses specified in the FDA-approved drug label, package insert, and marketing authorization is referred to as off-label prescribing. This occurs (...) when physicians prescribe a drug for a therapeutic purpose other than the one approved by the FDA; treat patients in a different age cohort or gender than the population on which it was tested; or prescribe a different dose, for a different duration of use, or a different mode of administration than indicated on the label. (shrink)

Prescribing drugs for uses that the FDA has not approved — off-label drug use — can sometimes be justified but is typically not supported by substantial evidence of effectiveness. At the root of inappropriate off-label drug use lie perverse incentives for pharmaceutical firms and flawed oversight of prescribing physicians. Typical reform proposals such as increased sanctions for manufacturers might reduce the incidence of unjustified off-label use, but they do not remove the source of the problem. Public policy should address the (...) cause and control the practice. To manage inappropriate off-label drug use, off-label prescriptions must be tracked in order to monitor the risks and benefits and the manufacturers’ conduct. Even more important, reimbursement rules should be changed so that manufacturers cannot profit from off-label sales. When off-label sales pass a critical threshold, manufacturers should also be required to pay for independent testing of the safety and effectiveness of off-label drug uses and for the FDA to review the evidence. Manufacturers should also finance, under FDA supervision, programs designed to warn physicians and the public about the risks of off-label drug use. (shrink)

The heart of the matter -- The evolution of the French medicine -- Coping with physicians' conflicts of interest in France -- The rise of a protected medical market : the United States before 1950 -- The commercial transformation : the United States, 1950-1980 -- The logic of medical markets : the United States, 1980 to the present -- Coping with physicians' conflicts of interest in the United States -- The evolution of Japanese medicine -- Coping with physicians' conflicts of (...) interest in Japan -- Reforms -- Professionalism reconsidered. (shrink)

Through the 1960s, many people claimed that drug advertising was educational and physicians often relied on it. Continuing Medical Education (CME) was developed to provide an alternative. However, because CME relied on grants, industry funders chose the subjects offered. Now policymakers worry that drug firms support CME to promote sales and that commercial support biases prescribing and fosters inappropriate drug use. A historical review reveals parallel problems between advertising and industry-funded CME. To preclude industry influence and improve CME, we should (...) ensure independent funding by taxing medical industries, facilities and physicians. Independent public and professional authorities should create CME curricula. An independent agency should allocate all funds to educational institutions for approved curricula. (shrink)

Public policy tries to promote appropriate drug use by allowing firms to market drugs in interstate commerce only for uses that the Food and Drug Administration has found to be safe and effective. Because of their medical knowledge, physicians are authorized to prescribe drugs even for uses unapproved by the FDA. Nevertheless, physicians have relied on drug firms for information on appropriate prescribing despite the inherent tension between drug firm dissemination of information to promote sales and rational prescribing. In the (...) past, physicians often relied particularly on drug firm advertising for information on drug use. Today, physicians rely on drug firms to finance continuing medical education. A historical review reveals connections between these two different ways commercial interests have influenced the information that physicians receive and points the way to needed reforms. (shrink)

This article compares the means that the United States, France, and Japan use to oversee pharmaceutical industry-physician financial relationships. These countries rely on professional and/or industry ethical codes, anti-kickback laws, and fair trade practice laws. They restrict kickbacks the most strictly, allow wide latitude on gifts, and generally permit drug firms to fund professional activities and associations. Consequently, to avoid legal liability, drug firms often replace kickbacks with gifts and grants. The paper concludes by proposing reforms that address problems that (...) persist when firms replace kickbacks with gifts and grants based on the experience of the three countries. (shrink)

Post-industrial societies confront common problems in pharmaceutical industry-physician relations. In order to promote sales, drug firms create financial relationships that influence physicians' prescriptions and sometimes even reward physicians for prescribing drugs. Three main types exist: kickbacks, gifts, and financial support for professional activities. The prevalence of these practices has evolved over time in response to changes in professional codes, law, and markets. There are certainly differences among these types of ties, but all of them can compromise physicians' independent judgment and (...) rational prescribing.Drug firms have paid kickbacks for prescribing drugs, purchasing drugs, switching brands prescribed, adding a drug to a hospital formulary, enrolling patients in post-marketing clinical trials, and writing practice guidelines that encourage the use of certain drugs. (shrink)

Is medical commerce a recent phenomenon? Does it distort the patient–physician relationship? Are investor-owned firms the main source of medical commercialism? I contend that medicine has generally been commerce in the United States, that medical commerce is a problem when it creates or worsens physicians' conflicts of interest, and that these conflicts thrive in nonprofit organizations as well as in investor-owned firms. I provide a historical sketch to show that physician entrepreneurialism, rather than commerce generally, is the main source of (...) physicians' conflicts of interest. (shrink)

The conventional wisdom is that managed care's brief life is over and we are now in a post-managed care era. In fact, managed care has a long history and continues to thrive. Writers also often assume that managed care is a fixed thing. They overlook that managed care has evolved and neglect to examine the role that it plays in the health system. Furthermore, private actors and the state have used managed care tools to promote diverse goals. These include the (...) following: increasing access to medical care; restricting physician entrepreneurialism; challenging professional control over the medical economy; curbing medical spending; managing medical practice and markets; furthering the growth of medical markets and private insurance; promoting for-profit medical facilities and insurers; earning bounties for reducing medical expenditures: and reducing governmental responsibility for, and oversight of, medical care. Struggles over these competing goals spurred the metamorphosis of managed care. This article explores how managed care transformed physicians' conflicts of interests and responses to them. It also examines how managed care altered the opportunities for patients/medical consumers to use exit and voice to spur change. (shrink)

Today, the goals of pharmaceutical policy and medical practice are often undermined due to institutional corruption — that is, widespread or systemic practices, usually legal, that undermine an institution's objectives or integrity. In this symposium, 16 articles investigate the corruption of pharmaceutical policy, each taking a different look at the sources of corruption, how it occurs, and what is corrupted. We will see that the pharmaceutical industry's own purposes are often undermined. Furthermore, pharmaceutical industry funding of election campaigns and lobbying (...) skews the legislative process that sets pharmaceutical policy. Moreover, certain practices have corrupted medical research, the production of medical knowledge, the practice of medicine, drug safety, the Food and Drug Administration's oversight of the pharmaceutical market, and the trustworthiness of patient advocacy organizations. (shrink)

Many writers suggest that managed care had a brief life and that we are now in a post-managed care era. Yet managed care has had a long history and continues to thrive. Writers also often assume that managed care is a fixed entity, or focus on its tools, rather than the context in which it operates and the functions it performs. They overlook that managed care has evolved and neglect to examine the role that it plays in the health system.This (...) article argues that private actors and the state have used managed care tools to promote diverse goals. These include the following: increasing access to medical care; restricting physician entrepreneurialism; challenging professional control over the medical economy; curbing medical spending; managing medical practice and markets; furthering the growth of medical markets and private insurance; promoting for-profit medical facilities and insurers; earning bounties for reducing medical expenditures; and reducing governmental responsibility for, and oversight of, medical care. Struggles over these competing goals spurred the metamorphosis of managed care internationally. (shrink)