Our idea: We propose that general practitioners should swear off attending any lectures, CME events, workshops or conferences which are funded, even partly, by those companies and organizations with ties to pharmaceutical and device manufacturers. Even events where the presenters have at least one tie to a pharmaceutical company within the last five years, or is supported by an association that receives funding by the pharma or device industry (including patient and disease groups), would be avoided. Clinicians and researchers who are working or consulting for, owning shares or patents in, or carrying out speaking engagements on behalf of industry would not be invited to present content to general practitioners.
How will this work? Physicians’ colleges, professional associations, and university-based continuing education programs would eliminate their dependency on industry-funded speakers, conferences, dinners, workshops and talks. Over time, physicians’ groups would develop their own conference content, invite only independent speakers, and collaborate with organizations that have the capacity for education, without the industry influences. CME credit would not be provided for events in which industry conflict of interest is present. Physicians will have to seek out independent and ‘clean’ sources of information about new drugs and treatments and will more likely rely on independent reviews produced by groups like the Cochrane Collaboration, La Revue Prescrire, and Up-to-Date which all have strict policies around conflict of interest.
Why does this matter? This would drastically change the landscape of prescribing and lead to better and more appropriate treatment, in the best interests of patients and outside the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Significant harm has been done to patients because of overzealous marketing, off-label endorsement, and the lobbying “machine” of industry which has developed a condition for every medication. Ultimately, with a divorce from industry-tainted education, physicians will increasingly favour treatments that are well-evidenced and most appropriate for the goals of care of their patients. This is likely to be be less costly for patients and the system, and would place increasing emphasis on non-drug alternatives. Also, the image of physicians as “pushers” or “in the pocket of the drug companies” would be reduced over time, enhancing trust from the public.
Why is this dangerous? Physicians have long been part of a system that has allowed the adverse effects of pharmaceutical and device marketing to influence prescribing and patient care. Physician organizations claim they cannot provide education without funding from industry; industry lobbyists argue that interaction with physicians is the only way patients can discover and reap the benefit of new innovations. Some physicians, naive to evidence to the contrary, believe that they are justified in accepting education, meals, and gifts because they (alone) are somehow immune to industry influence. A divorce from industry is not a popular idea, as evinced by the number of physicians and organizations that still feel it is ethical to incorporate this funding into medical education.
The current system is harming patients, but it can be stopped. Those physicians who are concerned that their patients perceive them to be shaped by drug marketing can become “Squeaky Clean” and wear that badge proudly.