Conflicts of interest between physicians' commitment to patient care and the desire of pharmaceutical companies and their representatives to sell their products pose challenges to the principles of medical professionalism. These conflicts occur when physicians have motives or are in situations for which reasonable observers could conclude that the moral requirements of the physician's roles are or will be compromised. Although physician groups, the manufacturers, and the federal government have instituted self-regulation of marketing, research in the psychology and social science of gift receipt and giving indicates that current controls will not satisfactorily protect the interests of patients. More stringent regulation is necessary, including the elimination or modification of common practices related to small gifts, pharmaceutical samples, continuing medical education, funds for physician travel, speakers bureaus, ghostwriting, and consulting and research contracts. We propose a policy under which academic medical centers would take the lead in eliminating the conflicts of interest that still characterize the relationship between physicians and the health care industry.

Professional medical associations (PMAs) play an essential role in defining and advancing health care standards. Their conferences, continuing medical education courses, practice guidelines, definitions of ethical norms, and public advocacy positions carry great weight with physicians and the public. Because many PMAs receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical and device companies, it is crucial that their guidelines manage both real and perceived conflict of interests. Any threat to the integrity of PMAs must be thoroughly and effectively resolved. Current PMA policies, however, are not uniform and often lack stringency. To address this situation, the authors first identified and analyzed conflicts of interest that may affect the activities, leadership, and members of PMAs. The authors then went on to formulate guidelines, both short-term and long-term, to prevent the appearance or reality of undue industry influence. The recommendations are rigorous and would require many PMAs to transform their mode of operation and perhaps, to forgo valuable activities. To maintain integrity, sacrifice may be required. Nevertheless, these changes are in the best interest of the PMAs, the profession, their members, and the larger society.

This systematic review of 36 studies examines associations between industry payments and physician prescribing. Background: Financial payments from the drug industry to U.S. physicians are common. Payments may influence physicians' clinical decision making and drug prescribing. Purpose: To evaluate whether r...

Importance Overuse of medical tests and treatments is an increasingly recognized problem across health systems; best practices for reducing overuse are not clear. Framing the problem in terms of the spectrum of potential patient harm is likely to be an effective strategy for clinician and patient engagement in efforts to reduce overuse, but the scope of negative consequences of overuse for patients has not been well described. Observations We sought to generate a comprehensive conceptual map documenting the processes through which overused tests and treatments lead to multiple domains of negative consequences for patients. For map development, an iterative consensus process was informed by structured review of the literature on overuse using PubMed and input from a panel of 6 international experts. For map verification, a systematic review was performed of case reports involving overused services, identified through literature review and manual review of relevant article collections. The conceptual map documents that overused tests and treatments and resultant downstream services generate 6 domains of negative consequences for patients: physical, psychological, social, financial, treatment burden, and dissatisfaction with health care. Negative consequences can result from overused services and from downstream services; they can also trigger further downstream services that in turn can lead to more negative consequences, in an ongoing feedback loop. Case reports on overuse confirmed the processes and domains of the conceptual map. Cases also revealed strengths and weaknesses in published communication about overuse: they were dominated by physical harms, with other negative consequences receiving far less attention. Conclusions and Relevance This evidence-based conceptual map clarifies the processes by which overused tests and treatments result in negative consequences for patients; it also documents multiple domains of negative consequences experienced by patients. The map will be useful for facilitating comprehensive communication about overuse, estimating harms and costs associated with overused services, and informing health system efforts to reduce overuse.

Background Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction. Objective To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives. Design, Setting, and Participants Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago. Measurements Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care. Results Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients. Conclusions Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.

Over the past 25 years, it has become standard practice in medical journals to require authors to disclose relationships with industry.^1-3 However, the requirements vary across journals and often lack specificity. It is left to authors to determine the appropriate period for disclosure or the relevance of a financial relationship to a submitted article. As a result, disclosures may be inconsistent, with neither reviewers nor readers fully informed of the ties between authors and industry.⁴