{"id":4250,"date":"2010-07-23T21:10:39","date_gmt":"2010-07-24T01:10:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4250"},"modified":"2010-07-23T21:10:39","modified_gmt":"2010-07-24T01:10:39","slug":"good-show","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/07\/23\/good-show\/","title":{"rendered":"good show…"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Harvard Med bolsters COI policy:<\/a>
 Will other schools follow suit?<\/a><\/strong>
PostScript<\/strong>
by Kathy Melley
July 22, 2010 <\/div>\n

Yesterday, Harvard Medical School announced<\/a><\/strong> strict conflict-of-interest rules that limit ties between its 11,000 faculty members and pharmaceutical and medical device makers, making it one of a growing number of medical schools across the country to address concerns about the influence of industry marketing on the education, training and practice of physicians.<\/p>\n

Highlights of the new policy, which will be phased in by January 1, 2011, include: <\/div>\n
    \n
  1. \n
    prohibiting all personal gifts, travel or meals from industry<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    banning participation on speakers bureaus (company-controlled talks)<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n
    capping at $10,000 annually per company the amount faculty can earn from a company whose technology or product they are investigating in clinical research<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n
    requiring Harvard to post on its website faculty member financial interests in, or payments from, pharmaceutical and medical device companies<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  5. \n
    prohibiting companies from sponsoring specific Harvard-run CME courses<\/font><\/strong> for physicians, unless more than one company sponsors the course and no one company funds more than 50 percent<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  6. \n
    requiring industry exhibits and programs to be held at a separate time and place from Harvard CME courses<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    As one of the world’s most prestigious medical education and research institutions, Harvard’s decision to strengthen its rules is a powerful acknowledgement of the impact of aggressive industry marketing on medicine. It also sends a strong signal to other institutions that have yet to address industry’s presence on medical campuses. It is also a reminder to the Massachusetts legislature, which is debating efforts to repeal the state’s ban on industry gifting to prescribers, that the medical profession is increasingly embracing the need for these restrictions and ethical standards…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    Political blogging is negative, almost by definition. Why else do it? But sometimes there’s a good thing to report. The invasion of the drug industry into Medicine and medical research is nauseating and profound. But thanks to the Senate Investigations by Senator Grassley and the tireless watchdogging of a number of blogs, things are beginning to change. I love my profession and would love to give excuses for the level of ethical lapse in this area, but to be honest, it is indefensible. This announcement by Harvard is a strong step in the right direction. It could be stronger – "totally forbidding faculty funding from a company whose technology or product they are investigating in clinical research<\/font><\/strong>" "prohibiting companies from sponsoring any specific Harvard-run CME courses at all<\/font><\/strong>." But that doesn’t detract from the strong message in this policy statement. Good show…  <\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Harvard Med bolsters COI policy: Will other schools follow suit? PostScript by Kathy Melley July 22, 2010 Yesterday, Harvard Medical School announced strict conflict-of-interest rules that limit ties between its 11,000 faculty members and pharmaceutical and medical device makers, making it one of a growing number of medical schools across the country to address concerns […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}