Rule changes to 'wining and dining' of doctors by drug companies 'a step backwards'
Posted
There are concerns drug companies will be better able to hide how much they wine and dine doctors under changes to public reporting rules, with one expert labelling the changes a "step backwards" for transparency.
Key points:
- Drug companies no longer have to publish how much they spend on "educational events" in the same way
- Experts have expressed anger at the changes, saying they lack transparency
- The Australian Medical Association says it is happy with the changes
Since late 2016, pharmaceutical companies have no longer had to publish information about what they spend on so-called "educational events" for health professionals in the same way.
Yesterday, the ABC revealed the correlation between these educational events and a massive explosion in the prescription of new generation blood-thinners.
Now, under a horse trade done with the regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the industry will only publish names of individual doctors and the "transfers of value" they receive for things like speaking events and trips to conferences.
It will no longer have to report food and beverage spending, with a $120 meal cap now applying to hospitality.
The changes have angered some academics and public health professionals, who say Australia has taken a step backwards in transparency and lags far behind the United States where transparency regulations are enshrined in law.
Bond University senior research fellow, Dr Ray Moynihan, said the previous Australian register had provided much-needed transparency.
"There's a sense that all of the junkets, all of the wining and dining is a thing of the past, well, unfortunately that's not the case," he said.
"It's still very much alive and well, and we know from the most recent reports from the pharmaceutical industry that there are tens of thousands of these events every year."
Dr Moynihan said it was particularly concerning how many loopholes there were in the new rules.
"Payments that drug companies provide to doctors still will remain essentially secret," he said.
"There's still a long way to go until there's real transparency between doctor and drug company relationships."
Academics are calling for a range of reforms that include encompassing the makers of generic medicines into transparency rules and a similar regime to the United States.
Dr Moynihan said the idea of using blind trusts to fund independent education had also been floated.
That is where companies contribute funds to a general pool, which is used for medical education.
"It's an idea that's been debated for some time, and I think has some merit," he said.
In a statement, the ACCC said that if it became aware that food and beverage spending had risen significantly, it might reconsider its position on the reporting requirements.
Reporting rule changes 'a step backwards'
Epidemiologist Professor John Attia from the Hunter Medical Research Institute said the previous register introduced in 2012 was a "breath of fresh air" and the changes were "a step backwards".
"If they were really serious about education, they would all put their money into a central education fund and that would be dispersed at arm's length for sponsoring independent education," he said.
"Physicians should be very wary of any educational event that's sponsored by the pharmaceutical company, because in the end they're a business trying to sell their product."
In a statement, Medicines Australia said it continually evaluated its code of conduct and "regularly engages with the medical profession, the Government and the community to ensure that it continues to provide the highest standard in ethical conduct and transparency within our industry".
"No other part of the medicines industry in Australia provides this degree of transparency about its engagements with medical, nursing, pharmacy and other healthcare professionals," it said.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) said it helped develop the new transparency rules and was happy with them.
"I believe it affords appropriate protections both for patients and for doctors," president Dr Michael Gannon said.
"There are very strict rules about the levels of hospitality. Those rules are appropriate."
Topics: medical-ethics, doctors-and-medical-professionals, health, stroke, diseases-and-disorders, australia
