70% of US medical schools ban docs from taking gifts

70% of US medical schools ban docs from taking gifts

Rema Nagarajan TIMES INSIGHT GROUP 

    Over 70% of the medical schools in the US have tightened their conflict of interest policies by totally banning gifts to doctors by pharmaceutical companies and prohibiting their faculty from taking money to be speakers for companies or allowing firms to directly fund medical education sessions.
    Harvard Medical School and medical schools of Stanford University, Boston University and Tufts University among several others have banned all gifts and on-site meals funded by the pharmaceutical and medical devices industry no matter how small or inexpensive. Many more medical schools have also prohibited sponsorship of on-campus continuing medical education (CME) by the healthcare industry and banned participation by their faculty in programmes for and by the industry.
    This was revealed in the 2013 Pharmfree Scorecard, a national overview of all US medical schools and their conflict of interest policies prepared by the American Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) along with the Pew Charitable Trusts’ prescription project. This is the sixth Pharmafree Scorecard, a survey launched in 2007 to grade medical schools’ policies on monitoring and restricting interaction of their faculty and students with the healthcare industry in 11 areas, including gifts, meals, drug samples and faculty participation in sponsored CMEs.
    Out of 158 medical institutions approached, 153 participated. Of these, 40 receive “A”s and 75 got “B”s compared to a total of just 45 medical schools scoring A and B grades in 2009.
    Thus the 2013 scorecard showed more institutions adopting stronger conflict-of-interest (COI) standards. The 13 institutions which received an “F” included two schools with no conflict of interest policy in place, and five schools that did not respond at all.
    On the issue of on-campus CME, the ideal policy was identified as not allowing industry to provide direct financial support for educational activities, including CME, directly or through a subsidiary agency.
    However, companies could contribute to a central fund at the institution where the pooled funds would be disbursed for various programmes independent of any industry input or control.