Medical Residency Programs Said to Take Drug Industry Cash - NYTimes.com

[Guest guest]

this has been how its been forever

Sheri

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/business/23docs.html?partner=rss & emc=rss

Doctor Training Aided by Drug Industry Cash

By DUFF WILSON

Published: February 22, 2010

More than half of the nation’s medical residency programs to train

doctors in internal medicine accepted financial support from the drug

industry, even though three-fourths of the programs’ directors said

accepting the aid was “not desirable,” a survey found.

At issue are potential conflicts of interest as the residency programs

accept drug company support to help train tens of thousands of new

doctors at a point in their careers when they are beginning to prescribe

drugs, according to the survey report.

The article was published Monday in the Web version of The

Archives of Internal Medicine. “Program directors are aware of the

problem, but right now they don’t have the funds to be free,” Dr. Joanne

M. Conroy, chief health care officer of the Association of American

Medical Colleges, who was not involved in the survey, but had seen the

report.

The survey, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that drug companies paid

for educational materials like pocket guides in 83 percent of the

programs that accepted support, meals in 90 percent, office supplies in

68 percent and drug samples in 57 percent.

Medical residency programs in the southern United States were much more

likely to accept the industry largess than those in the Northeast ­ 72

percent to 47 percent. The overall rate of accepting drug industry

financing was 55 percent, but that was down from the 88 percent level

reported in a 1990 survey.

The Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine conducted the

survey. Responses were returned by 236 of the nation’s 381 internal

medicine program directors, who together train more than 22,000

doctors.

Of special note in the survey results, the authors wrote, programs where

fewer graduates passed tests from the American Board of Internal Medicine

­ “one indicator of program quality” ­ were also more likely to accept

the assistance.

Dr. Furman S. Mc, a co-author of the survey report and director of

internal medicine residency at the

Mayo Clinic, said it was unclear whether the lower test scores

indicated a lack of overall support for the residency programs that took

industry money, or a negative effect from the information being imparted

by the pharmaceutical industry.

“As the pass rates went down,” he said of the new doctors’ test scores,

“the odds of accepting pharmaceutical support went up.” Dr. Mc

called for more research in that area.

Residency programs in internal medicine typically last three years after

medical school, “a particularly formative time for physicians,” the study

said.

Other surveys have indicated that medical residents do not think that

their own actions are influenced by industry gifts, but that they do

think that their colleagues are influenced. Surveys have also shown that

gifts as small as a pen or food can influence prescribing

patterns.

Meals are often provided for busy residents during educational

presentations.

Dr. J. Blaser, chairman of the department of medicine at

New York University, said his organization’s internal medicine

residency program decided about five years ago to stop accepting food or

financial support from industry.

“I spend a fair amount of my budget feeding my residents,” Dr. Blaser

said, “but then they can learn in a way that is not unduly influenced by

who is feeding them.”

“Our lunches are not quite as opulent as the lunches they used to have,

but they have sufficient

nutrition,” said Dr. Blaser, who was not involved in conducting the

survey.

While 72 percent of the survey respondents said drug industry financing

was not desirable, many of those skeptics still took the money, the

survey showed. The reason, for two-thirds of the directors who reported

taking industry money, was inadequate financing from other sources.

They also cited the popularity of drug industry perks among residents in

40 percent of the programs, and encouragement from the administration in

19 percent.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education is the one place

that could possibly ban such pharmaceutical financing in all medical

residency programs, Dr. Mc said. The survey did not call for a

blanket ban, but for more research.

The accreditation council declined comment on Monday.

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start February 24 & 25

[Guest guest]

this has been how its been forever

Sheri

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/business/23docs.html?partner=rss & emc=rss

Doctor Training Aided by Drug Industry Cash

By DUFF WILSON

Published: February 22, 2010

More than half of the nation’s medical residency programs to train

doctors in internal medicine accepted financial support from the drug

industry, even though three-fourths of the programs’ directors said

accepting the aid was “not desirable,” a survey found.

At issue are potential conflicts of interest as the residency programs

accept drug company support to help train tens of thousands of new

doctors at a point in their careers when they are beginning to prescribe

drugs, according to the survey report.

The article was published Monday in the Web version of The

Archives of Internal Medicine. “Program directors are aware of the

problem, but right now they don’t have the funds to be free,” Dr. Joanne

M. Conroy, chief health care officer of the Association of American

Medical Colleges, who was not involved in the survey, but had seen the

report.

The survey, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that drug companies paid

for educational materials like pocket guides in 83 percent of the

programs that accepted support, meals in 90 percent, office supplies in

68 percent and drug samples in 57 percent.

Medical residency programs in the southern United States were much more

likely to accept the industry largess than those in the Northeast ­ 72

percent to 47 percent. The overall rate of accepting drug industry

financing was 55 percent, but that was down from the 88 percent level

reported in a 1990 survey.

The Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine conducted the

survey. Responses were returned by 236 of the nation’s 381 internal

medicine program directors, who together train more than 22,000

doctors.

Of special note in the survey results, the authors wrote, programs where

fewer graduates passed tests from the American Board of Internal Medicine

­ “one indicator of program quality” ­ were also more likely to accept

the assistance.

Dr. Furman S. Mc, a co-author of the survey report and director of

internal medicine residency at the

Mayo Clinic, said it was unclear whether the lower test scores

indicated a lack of overall support for the residency programs that took

industry money, or a negative effect from the information being imparted

by the pharmaceutical industry.

“As the pass rates went down,” he said of the new doctors’ test scores,

“the odds of accepting pharmaceutical support went up.” Dr. Mc

called for more research in that area.

Residency programs in internal medicine typically last three years after

medical school, “a particularly formative time for physicians,” the study

said.

Other surveys have indicated that medical residents do not think that

their own actions are influenced by industry gifts, but that they do

think that their colleagues are influenced. Surveys have also shown that

gifts as small as a pen or food can influence prescribing

patterns.

Meals are often provided for busy residents during educational

presentations.

Dr. J. Blaser, chairman of the department of medicine at

New York University, said his organization’s internal medicine

residency program decided about five years ago to stop accepting food or

financial support from industry.

“I spend a fair amount of my budget feeding my residents,” Dr. Blaser

said, “but then they can learn in a way that is not unduly influenced by

who is feeding them.”

“Our lunches are not quite as opulent as the lunches they used to have,

but they have sufficient

nutrition,” said Dr. Blaser, who was not involved in conducting the

survey.

While 72 percent of the survey respondents said drug industry financing

was not desirable, many of those skeptics still took the money, the

survey showed. The reason, for two-thirds of the directors who reported

taking industry money, was inadequate financing from other sources.

They also cited the popularity of drug industry perks among residents in

40 percent of the programs, and encouragement from the administration in

19 percent.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education is the one place

that could possibly ban such pharmaceutical financing in all medical

residency programs, Dr. Mc said. The survey did not call for a

blanket ban, but for more research.

The accreditation council declined comment on Monday.

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start February 24 & 25