Stanford Disciplines Faculty For Pharma Ties
9 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 19th, 2011 // 12:37 pm
Stanford University has disciplined five faculty members at its medical school for violating school policy by giving paid promotional speeches for drugmakers, according to ProPublica, which a few months ago wrote that Stanford was one of several teaching hospitals that failed to enforce their own conflict-of-interest rules. At the time, more than a dozen faculty members were identified as paid speakers (back story).
Paul Costello, a Stanford spokesman, declined to name the disciplined faculty members or discuss their penalties. But in a written statement, he told ProPublica that the “actions are significant” and have or could impact the doctors’ compensation or positions.
In a note to faculty last December, medical school dean Paul Pizzo wrote that a preliminary investigation suggests that “some of the individuals (cited by ProPublica) had understandable reasons for confusion about Stanford’s policies and have already addressed them and ceased activities like speakers’ bureau participation. Others, though, offered explanations why their activities continued that are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with our policy, and here we have concerns.”
The move reflects increasing concern that interactions between pharma and academic researchers may unduly influence research and the way medicine is practiced. In response to growing scrutiny, such as a regular scorecard issued by the American Medical Student Association, more med schools have begun adopting or strengthening their conflicts policies (back story here, here and here).
Director of Pharmacy
interesting that Stanford won’t let their MDs speak for pharma or device, but that deans and members of the C-Suite serve (and receive compensation from) on the boards of insurance companies, PBMs, and generic manufacturers.
Paul
And lots of high-tech Silicon Valley companies
John
Over 10% of the US GDP is absorbed by a system in which physicians are both paid by the number of procedures performed, and are the final decision makers on which procedures are needed.
Worrying about speaker’s fees, pens and coffee cups is fine, but ultimately a minor detail in comparison to the COI that is at the heart of the American healthcare system.
disgusted
Right On John! Here’s one small example, pt. with schizophrenia on clozapine, comes to a clinic with medicaid fee for service three times a week, once for blood draw(weekly monitoring required for first 6 months) once to meet the prescriber,and once to meet with the social worker. That at about $100.00/visit.
Gassa
Disgusted, what public clinic in this economy gives a schizophrenic patient so much attention? Please provide links, as I’d like to follow up on this.
Jon
It’s clear that the academic medical centers read the newspapers (Biederman, et al) and don’t want their names in these kinds of lights. That said, I agree that these moves are mere window dressing to the uglier problems beneath the surface.
PsychMD
I received my psychiatry training at Stanford in the early 2000s. I still recall “instructional” psychopharmacology lectures which contained pharma-sponsored Powerpoint slides. Every faculty member I can recall (with one exception) had some ties with big pharma.
Makes me wonder whether I received a fair education. But, in retrospect, it certainly explains why I prescribe a s***load of Seroquel, Geodon, and Abilify.
Gassa
PsychMD, are you saying that you — as an individual doctor — don’t look into these drugs before you prescribe them? That you rely on lectures?
industry insider
PsychMD, nothing to apologize for. You would have eventually prescribed a s*** load of Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify not because of pharma hype but because these are good drugs when properly prescribed and used.