Higher Ed Hypocrisy In Policy Implementation

By Rob Wright, Chief Editor, Life Science Leader
Follow Me On Twitter @RfwrightLSL

By  Rob Wright

I recently read a story about industry support for continuing medical education (CME) dropping for the third consecutive year. To this I say, “Well it’s about time.” When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry, it never ceased to amaze me how medical institutions would limit access to drug company sales representatives and yet be the first to have their hand out for financial support of a CME program. The industry still provided $830 million in support of CME events in 2010 — a 31% drop from three years previous. In my opinion it is still too much.

Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It To
In the mid-to-late 2000s, some medical schools began making access for pharmaceutical sales representative more difficult by banning lunches, gifts, pens, Post-it notes, and so forth. I don’t have a problem with this policy. I only wish it had come sooner. For those who don’t know, drug rep lunches were not the industry’s idea. I was in the business prior to the advent of the lunch & learn. I recall the name of the doctor, the hospital affiliation, and the rather terse conversation we had when he informed me that if I wanted an appointment, I needed to bring lunch for him and his staff. And thus began my career as a caterer. Before long, offices of 60 staff members would be calling me to remind me of my lunch appointment and to inquire what I would be bringing. Sometimes they would call to inform me to either place an order or remind me that doctor’s spouse just so happens to own a restaurant. How convenient. Fortunately, I never played that game, always informing the office — the food had already been ordered. I did the lunches because physicians placed this constraint for my being able to gain access.

Hypocrisy
Medical schools have not placed a total ban on drug rep access, but the policies they have put in place of refusing samples is close enough. On April 1, 2009, UPMC implemented a policy which prevented doctors from accepting samples from drug reps. Instead they developed a program where companies could ship their samples to a central distribution center, which would then distribute to UPMC clinicians who would request samples. This was reported in a March 20, 2009 article by Walter Roche Jr. of the Tribune Review. What was not reported was the cost to drug companies to participate, usually a $20,000 entry fee. Stanford has a policy forbidding faculty from serving as speakers for industry. However, just last year, an independent news agency uncovered that more than a dozen Stanford physicians were in direct violation of the policy. They claimed they didn’t know they were in violation.

What I find hypocritical is the willingness of these medical institutions to limit access by drug companies, yet still expect financial support for CME events and grants for research on post-commercialized products. Here is a suggestion: If you are going to ban your physicians from speaking on behalf of companies, perhaps you should ban your business faculty from serving on company board of directors. I do not begrudge these individuals from being paid for services rendered. Nor do I begrudge physicians from trying to make a little extra money. What rubs me the wrong way is the hypocrisy demonstrated by prestigious universities and the implementation of policies that do not hold all faculty members to the same standard.