GUEST COMMENTARY

Ill-Advised Proposal: Censoring Industry Jeopardizes Patients
By John Kamp
Biopharma companies fulfill a vital role—communicating safety and effectiveness information to patients and their physicians. Many industry critics would censor those messages, contending that the information is tainted.

We live in an always-on Internet age, when consumer and clinician alike are bombarded with health information, much of it unfiltered and untrustworthy. Does it make sense to censor a source of authoritative education and marketing carefully regulated by the FDA? In short, no.

Education a Must
The Coalition for Healthcare Communication (Coalition) and other industry groups continue to educate legislators, policy leaders, pharmaceutical executives and marketers that censorship jeopardizes patient care. The large number of regulatory and legislative attacks around the country magnifies the threat and requires a coordinated effort by the healthcare industry to ensure continuing access.

For instance, last year a proposal from the American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) recommended that physicians not participate in industry-supported medical education events, including both certified continuing medical education (CME) and FDA-regulated promotional education.

At the request of members, the proposal was tabled and returned for further study. Indeed, as CEJA reconsiders, it will likely review the results of a recent poll of practicing physicians by healthcare marketing research firm Manhattan Research, finding only 9% oppose commercial support for CME funding; only 8% believe it’s biased; and nearly half say if commercial support were halted, they would decrease use of CME.

Patients—the primary beneficiaries of CME, along with physicians—would be better served by improvements in course availability, offerings and content. Increased industry provider collaboration designed to connect health advances to healthcare providers constitutes a more constructive focus for reform.

Wrong Approach
Critics also have taken aim at the pharmaceutical company practice of giving gifts to physicians. Several federal legislators have demanded greater transparency in the relationships between industry and prescribers, offering transparency bills that would require a national registry of payments. On the state level, the Massachusetts governor signed a bill last year requiring pharmaceutical and medical-device manufacturers to report provider gifts over $50.

Thomas Sullivan, in his blog “Policy and Medicine,” wrote that the Massachusetts bill was designed to slow healthcare-spending increases, yet new regulations and staff will be needed to enforce the bill, diverting tax dollars from direct healthcare. Companies will need to spend more time on record-keeping. “This hardly seems the right approach to bring down healthcare spending, or to increase the effectiveness of care!” (See: www.medpolicy.com.)

The CME and transparency policies are just two draft measures impinging on healthcare communications. In effect, all industry provider relationships are under siege: detailing, sampling, and promotional education has been limited by medical schools, managed care and individual prescribers; prescriber-data use faces limits In New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine; and “failure to warn” class-action suits are a new and growing litigation threat.

Take Action
The gathering storm of adverse legislation and regulation against marketing Efforts of biopharmaceutical and device companies puts the nation’s patients and their healthcare professionals at risk. In the face of such ill-advised proposals, industry and healthcare providers must come together to demonstrate the value of information vital for improving patient wellbeing.

Ahead of a redraft of their proposal on the issue of commercial support in CME, AMA’s CEJA and CME committees are soliciting commentary from stakeholders. Get informed and send a note to the CEJA committee. An “Information for Physicians” page on the Coalition’s site compiles many of the ongoing studies on these issues and gives visitors an opportunity to participate. The Coalition subcommittee co-chairs are another good point of contact.

Biopharma and medical device firms are in business helping healthcare providers advance public health and community wellness. While many stakeholders contribute to this mission—medical and academic organizations, companies, CME providers and accreditation and regulatory bodies—encouraging more robust collaboration, not less, is the best way to ensure they align around a single point: the patient.

For more information on how you can participate, contact John Kamp, Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication (jkamp@cohealthcom.org) or visit the Coalition web site, www.cohealthcom.org.

DISCLAIMER: The Guest Commentary page allows contributors to voice their opinions on important issues that affect the industry. The views of the authors are their own, and are not necessarily
those of PM360 and its staff.