New paradigms for physician-industry relations

Overview and application for SVS members

Niten Singh, Ruth Bush, Michael Dalsing, Cynthia K. Shortell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Relationships between physicians and their industry partners have ranged from spectacular collaborations that produce extraordinary advances in patient care, such as endovascular aneurysm repair, to humiliating scandals such as extravagant trips and bogus "consulting" agreements resulting in legal actions. It is the latter which have led many to call for the end of all physician-industry relationships, and the former which mandate their preservation. While these two examples are representative of extremes at each end of the spectrum of this issue, in reality the majority of physician-industry relationships are far more complex, and the line between appropriate and inappropriate, and ethical and unethical, is hard to draw. The benefits of our relationships with industry are many: partnering to develop new therapies and technologies, educating and training physicians around new therapies and technologies, support of continuing medical education (CME), fellowship training, and patient education. The pitfall and danger of this relationship is that support from industry, be it a meal, a pen, an educational grant, or flattery, may unduly and inappropriately influence physician decision making around a specific company's product. While it is clear that free trips are not within the realm of proper interaction, what about unrestricted educational grants to institutions, or support of CME activities, professional society meetings, and new device training? As a result of the intense scrutiny of relationships between physicians and industry recently, multiple diverse entities (Association of American Medical Colleges, American Medical Association, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, professional medical associations, academic medical centers, industry, and government) have generated guidelines and policies with very different perspectives, reflective of their different missions. These policies range from vague and lenient, with only basic limitation of the physician-industry relationship, to extremely rigid and strict, with only minimal interaction and mission support permitted. Given the many changes in oversight and expectations for the relationship between physicians and industry, it is important for vascular surgeons to be aware of the background behind these modifications, the evidence that they are needed, and the positions of the diverse organizations and institutions that have already defined their policies on this issue.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume54
Issue number3 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2011

Fingerprint

Industry
Physicians
Continuing Medical Education
Training Support
American Medical Association
Technology
Accreditation
Patient Education
Aneurysm
Blood Vessels
Meals
Decision Making
Patient Care
Organizations
Guidelines
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

New paradigms for physician-industry relations : Overview and application for SVS members. / Singh, Niten; Bush, Ruth; Dalsing, Michael; Shortell, Cynthia K.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 54, No. 3 SUPPL., 09.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cf733f343c654f4bb302b7b445259b7c,
title = "New paradigms for physician-industry relations: Overview and application for SVS members",
abstract = "Relationships between physicians and their industry partners have ranged from spectacular collaborations that produce extraordinary advances in patient care, such as endovascular aneurysm repair, to humiliating scandals such as extravagant trips and bogus {"}consulting{"} agreements resulting in legal actions. It is the latter which have led many to call for the end of all physician-industry relationships, and the former which mandate their preservation. While these two examples are representative of extremes at each end of the spectrum of this issue, in reality the majority of physician-industry relationships are far more complex, and the line between appropriate and inappropriate, and ethical and unethical, is hard to draw. The benefits of our relationships with industry are many: partnering to develop new therapies and technologies, educating and training physicians around new therapies and technologies, support of continuing medical education (CME), fellowship training, and patient education. The pitfall and danger of this relationship is that support from industry, be it a meal, a pen, an educational grant, or flattery, may unduly and inappropriately influence physician decision making around a specific company's product. While it is clear that free trips are not within the realm of proper interaction, what about unrestricted educational grants to institutions, or support of CME activities, professional society meetings, and new device training? As a result of the intense scrutiny of relationships between physicians and industry recently, multiple diverse entities (Association of American Medical Colleges, American Medical Association, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, professional medical associations, academic medical centers, industry, and government) have generated guidelines and policies with very different perspectives, reflective of their different missions. These policies range from vague and lenient, with only basic limitation of the physician-industry relationship, to extremely rigid and strict, with only minimal interaction and mission support permitted. Given the many changes in oversight and expectations for the relationship between physicians and industry, it is important for vascular surgeons to be aware of the background behind these modifications, the evidence that they are needed, and the positions of the diverse organizations and institutions that have already defined their policies on this issue.",
author = "Niten Singh and Ruth Bush and Michael Dalsing and Shortell, {Cynthia K.}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.016",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - New paradigms for physician-industry relations

T2 - Overview and application for SVS members

AU - Singh, Niten

AU - Bush, Ruth

AU - Dalsing, Michael

AU - Shortell, Cynthia K.

PY - 2011/9

Y1 - 2011/9

N2 - Relationships between physicians and their industry partners have ranged from spectacular collaborations that produce extraordinary advances in patient care, such as endovascular aneurysm repair, to humiliating scandals such as extravagant trips and bogus "consulting" agreements resulting in legal actions. It is the latter which have led many to call for the end of all physician-industry relationships, and the former which mandate their preservation. While these two examples are representative of extremes at each end of the spectrum of this issue, in reality the majority of physician-industry relationships are far more complex, and the line between appropriate and inappropriate, and ethical and unethical, is hard to draw. The benefits of our relationships with industry are many: partnering to develop new therapies and technologies, educating and training physicians around new therapies and technologies, support of continuing medical education (CME), fellowship training, and patient education. The pitfall and danger of this relationship is that support from industry, be it a meal, a pen, an educational grant, or flattery, may unduly and inappropriately influence physician decision making around a specific company's product. While it is clear that free trips are not within the realm of proper interaction, what about unrestricted educational grants to institutions, or support of CME activities, professional society meetings, and new device training? As a result of the intense scrutiny of relationships between physicians and industry recently, multiple diverse entities (Association of American Medical Colleges, American Medical Association, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, professional medical associations, academic medical centers, industry, and government) have generated guidelines and policies with very different perspectives, reflective of their different missions. These policies range from vague and lenient, with only basic limitation of the physician-industry relationship, to extremely rigid and strict, with only minimal interaction and mission support permitted. Given the many changes in oversight and expectations for the relationship between physicians and industry, it is important for vascular surgeons to be aware of the background behind these modifications, the evidence that they are needed, and the positions of the diverse organizations and institutions that have already defined their policies on this issue.

AB - Relationships between physicians and their industry partners have ranged from spectacular collaborations that produce extraordinary advances in patient care, such as endovascular aneurysm repair, to humiliating scandals such as extravagant trips and bogus "consulting" agreements resulting in legal actions. It is the latter which have led many to call for the end of all physician-industry relationships, and the former which mandate their preservation. While these two examples are representative of extremes at each end of the spectrum of this issue, in reality the majority of physician-industry relationships are far more complex, and the line between appropriate and inappropriate, and ethical and unethical, is hard to draw. The benefits of our relationships with industry are many: partnering to develop new therapies and technologies, educating and training physicians around new therapies and technologies, support of continuing medical education (CME), fellowship training, and patient education. The pitfall and danger of this relationship is that support from industry, be it a meal, a pen, an educational grant, or flattery, may unduly and inappropriately influence physician decision making around a specific company's product. While it is clear that free trips are not within the realm of proper interaction, what about unrestricted educational grants to institutions, or support of CME activities, professional society meetings, and new device training? As a result of the intense scrutiny of relationships between physicians and industry recently, multiple diverse entities (Association of American Medical Colleges, American Medical Association, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, professional medical associations, academic medical centers, industry, and government) have generated guidelines and policies with very different perspectives, reflective of their different missions. These policies range from vague and lenient, with only basic limitation of the physician-industry relationship, to extremely rigid and strict, with only minimal interaction and mission support permitted. Given the many changes in oversight and expectations for the relationship between physicians and industry, it is important for vascular surgeons to be aware of the background behind these modifications, the evidence that they are needed, and the positions of the diverse organizations and institutions that have already defined their policies on this issue.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052240135&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052240135&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.016

M3 - Article

VL - 54

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 3 SUPPL.

ER -