a lesson…

Posted on Saturday 4 October 2008

It’s strange to have spent the last several years keeping up with what has seemed to me to be a corrupt Administration in Washington, and then to read about corruption in a place that has been so much a part of my life – the Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. In the post below, I mentioned some things about this. Here’s some more of the New York Times article:

… In 2004, Emory investigated Dr. Nemeroff’s outside consulting arrangements. In a 14-page report, Emory’s conflict of interest committee detailed multiple “serious” and “significant” violations of university procedures intended to protect patients. But the university apparently took little action against Dr. Nemeroff and made no effort to independently audit his consulting income, documents show.

Universities, too, can benefit from the fame and money the deals can bring — a point Dr. Nemeroff made in a May 2000 letter stamped “confidential” that he sent to the dean of Emory’s medical school. The letter, which was part of a record from a Congressional hearing, addressed Dr. Nemeroff’s membership on a dozen corporate advisory boards (some of the companies’ names have since changed).

“Surely you remember that Smith-Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals donated an endowed chair to the department and that there is some reasonable likelihood that Janssen Pharmaceuticals will do so as well,” he wrote. “In addition, Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals has funded a Research Career Development Award program in the department, and I have asked both AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Meyers [sic] Squibb to do the same. Part of the rationale for their funding our faculty in such a manner would be my service on these boards.”

Universities once looked askance at professors who consulted for more than one or two drug companies, but that changed after a 1980 law gave the universities ownership of patents discovered with federal money. The law helped give birth to the biotechnology industry and led to the discovery of dozens of life-saving medicines. Consulting arrangements soon proliferated at medical schools, and Dr. Nemeroff — who at one point consulted for 21 drug and device companies simultaneously — became a national model.

He may now become a model for a broad reassessment of industry relationships. Many medical schools, societies and groups are considering barring doctors from giving lectures on drug or device marketing. For all his fame in the world of psychiatry, Dr. Nemeroff has faced ethics troubles before. In 2006, he blamed a clerical mix-up for his failing to disclose that he and his co-authors had financial ties to Cyberonics, the maker of a controversial device that they reviewed favorably in a journal he edited…
I don’t have any actual information about Dr. Nemeroff. But I do know that the Department I grew up in and the Department it has become, are radically different. Back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, we were underfunded. Government Training Grants had been pared way down, so our Residency placements were hard to find and hold onto as the State and Private Hospitals also tightened their financial strings. Keeping things going was a tough job. At first, the coming of a new Chairman seemed like a breath of fresh air, but it soon became apparent that things were changing. Radical cuts in third party coverage for mental illness put a heavy burden of both patients and practitioners. There was a pressure for Psychiatrists to become "medicalized," writing prescriptions only. And the change in Chairmen brought this new focus to the Department. In a short span of time, I felt like a Dinosaur – being more focused on psychotherapy. I had no expertise in grant writing, drug studies, and honestly felt that the Specialty was being more driven by the financial trends in the country than by patient care. And my directions were clearly at odds with the new wave that was coming. So I left and spent the rest of my career doing what I knew how to do – happily, I might add. 

The highlighted portion above in which Dr. Nemeroff reminds the Dean how much money he’s bringing in to the University and the Department is at the center of the problem. I had directed the Residency Program during very lean years – hand to mouth is what it felt like. In the last 20+ years, that hasn’t been so much the problem. As Dr. Nemeroff points out, his connections with Drug Companies had gone a long way towards fixing the finances. That’s hard to argue with, particularly when there are no alternatives. The other side of that coin is obvious. This exchange between Dr. Adkison [a solid citizen who had been promoted from beloved basic science professor to Associate Dean] illustrates the dilemma. She was very clear about the problem:
The Cyberonics paper led to a bitter e-mail exchange between Dr. Nemeroff and Claudia R. Adkison, an associate dean at Emory, according to Congressional records. Dr. Adkison noted that Cyberonics had not only paid Dr. Nemeroff and his co-authors but had also given an unrestricted educational grant to Dr. Nemeroff’s department. “I can’t believe that anyone in the public or in academia would believe anything except that this paper was a piece of paid marketing,” Dr. Adkison wrote on July 20, 2006.

Two years earlier, unknown to the public, Emory’s conflict of interest committee discovered that Dr. Nemeroff had made more serious blunders, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest in trials of drugs from Merck, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson. His continuing oversight of a federally financed trial using GlaxoSmithKline medicines led Dr. Adkison to write Dr. Nemeroff on July 15, 2004, that “you must clearly certify on your annual disclosure form that you do not receive more than $10,000 from GSK.”

In a reply dated Aug. 4, Dr. Nemeroff wrote that he had already done so but promised again that “my consulting fees from GSK will be less than $10,000 per year throughout the period of this N.I.H. grant.” When he sent that letter, Dr. Nemeroff had already earned more than $98,000 that year from GlaxoSmithKline. Three weeks later, he received another $3,844.56 for giving a marketing talk at the Passion Fish Restaurant in Woodbury, N.Y.

From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents. Sarah Alspach, a GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman, said via e-mail that “Dr. Nemeroff is a recognized world leader in the field of psychiatry,” and that the company requires its paid speakers to “proactively disclose their financial relationship with GSK, and we believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making those disclosures.”
The double bind is obvious. If Emory took the high road and severed ties with these companies and Dr. Nemeroff, where would institutional funding come from? If they took the low road, they were selling academic medicine down the river. So, Emory apparently tried to stay on the fence. The problem then became that there remained a rich environment for the kinds of corruption and perversion of medical science that are now being alleged and investigated.

The great irony of all of this is that Congress finally passed a Mental Health Law yesterday to bring Mental Illness back into the place where it will be covered by insurance. That was the problem in the first place – "unfunding" mental health [under Ronald Reagan]:

Talk about going out with a win.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has spent years fighting for legislation that would require insurance plans to treat mental health patients on par with those who have physical ailments. No more higher copays or deductibles for the mental health treatments. No more limits on visits to the doctor that differ from the caps for other patients.

Domenici, after six terms, is leaving office this year. One of his final votes was on the mental health legislation he fought so hard for over the years.

The mental health protections are part of a massive bill designed to help the economy that was passed by the House Friday and sent to President Bush for signing.

Domenici has a daughter diagnosed with atypical schizophrenia. He got involved in the parity issue after joining a National Alliance on Mental Illness support group nearly 20 years ago. On his way home from work, he and his wife, Nancy, would meet with other parents of children with mental health problems.

"The first real understanding of how broad the problem was came from those meetings where I met with mothers and fathers who had children who were mentally ill, and they were going bankrupt because they couldn’t pay the health bills, or their children were in jails instead of hospitals," Domenici said.

He said perceptions about the ability to treat mental health problems have changed greatly over the years, but coverage has also become an expensive proposition. So, he and others, such as the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., began pushing for health insurance parity. Those who would have to bear most of the expense offered the most resistance.

"Those who stood to lose fought hard and that was principally insurance companies and businesses," Domenici said…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.