As a patient, patient blogger, and all around news junkie, I have to admit when I first heard about health care reform legislation in Massachusetts aimed at reducing costs this past March, I was more than interested. When I learned that part of this legislation involved a ban on gifts to physicians from pharmaceutical companies, I was even more interested. Reduce costs and limit potential conflicts of interest? My heart trilled just a bit. What’s not to love?
But if a recent flurry of headlines about the controversy and heated opinions are any indication, newly modified legislation that makes public any gift of $50 or more a physician receives from a pharmaceutical or other company is anything but simple or obvious—especially in a state like Massachusetts, where the life sciences sector is a huge part of the economy and academic research centers and hospitals are integral.
To wit, an editorial in the Boston Globe urges Governor Deval Patrick to stand firm on the bill, writing that “the state is right to make sure doctors make medication decisions based on merits, and not meals.” At the same time, an op-ed penned by leaders from the biotech and medical device industries outlines their case for why the legislation “will absolutely affect whether companies continue to choose our world-class hospitals for this important clinical work.” Read through them for more background; there’s a lot to digest.
It’s certainly a good time to be a health news junkie in Boston, no?
As always, what I’m interested in how these issues will affect our daily lives. As a patient with rare diseases who knows firsthand how important research and development are to patient outcomes, how could I not be curious? After all, clinical trials are where the developments we count on come from, and if this legislation will have a negative impact on clinical trials, as opponents claim, I’m certainly paying attention.
It makes plenty of sense to me why legislators who want to reform health care and contain costs would support this bill, and it makes a lot of sense to me why patients would care about what their doctors are getting from the companies that manufacture the medications and medical devices that treat them. Patients want the treatments that are best for them, and those are not necessarily the ones that have the largest marketing and promotions budget. Transparency is a hot-button issue in health care right now, and with good reason in this context.
It’s important to me I understand where the positions both sides are taking originate, and clearly it’s not enough to pit this in terms of disclosing physicians’ gifts or not, or making comments about sandwiches and pens. To that end, I chatted today with Dr. David Charles, chairman of the Alliance for Patient Access, a non-profit organization that teaches physicians how to advocate to ensure patients have access to appropriate therapies, to see why there is such opposition to this legislation.
(Since it’s all about disclosure, the AfPA receives funding from industry trade groups).
According to Dr. Charles, a fundamental problem with this portion of the legislation is that it has the potential to set up a “complete misunderstanding” of the relationship between universities, physicians, and the companies (pharmaceutical, medical devices, biologics, etc) that support these clinical trials—and he considers this partnership imperative if we’re to continue seeing progress in understanding and treating diseases like multiple sclerosis or Alzheimer’s, to name but a few.
“This is a step backwards, not forwards,” he says.
Since the information published on the state Web site would mention the physician’s name and the money he/she received that went above $50—and not how the money was used—he fears the flow of funding could be misconstrued. This also goes along with other claims (see links above) that this kind of disclosure would make physicians less likely to participate in clinical trials, meaning companies would then invest in them in other places.
For example, money that goes to the university to help support clinical trials would look like it was simply being paid to a physician, not the university and all the staff involved in the trial. Or, money allocated for a physician to teach other physicians how to use cutting edge technology and devices that improve patient care would not be identified as such. Dr. Charles worries this “disclosure without context” could make what are completely appropriate and essential practices seem inappropriate.
He also had some interesting things to say about the writing of prescriptions, which is often one of the first criticisms patients and policy experts point to when discussing conflicts of interest and gifts from pharmaceutical companies. “Writing prescriptions is not the issue at hand,” he says. Rather, helping physicians understand when to select certain medications—what the side effects are, what drugs they work the best with and which ones they shouldn’t be prescribed with, etc—is the key issue. He views educating physicians about these variables, much like training physicians on how to use new equipment and other forms of continuing medical information, as both completely appropriate and essential for the best care for patients.
So patients (and readers from all points of view), I’m interested in what you think about all of this. As you can see from the media blitz on all sides the debate wages on, but the bottom line is, what is best for the patient? Do the potential risks to the partnership so important to clinical trials outweigh the benefits of the concept of transparency so many of us hold as paramount these days? While we wait for the Governor’s response, I’m eager for yours.
UPDATE, 8/11: Here's an update article from today's Globe that discusses the health policy Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law. Looks like transparency wins--or at least gets a big push! Check out the article; there's a lot of good info the primary care physician problem I've written about before.