Since the Beijing Olympics, we've seen Michael Phelps on the Today
Show to talk about his Speedo LZR swimsuit, and the image of Shawn
Johnson sticking a perfect landing is on millions of McDonald's paper
bags and cups. But athletes aren't the only people getting paid to
promote products anymore; physicians are, as well. In an age where it
seems like doctors are prescribing pills for every little ailment, it's
becoming apparent that some of these medical professionals are getting
big bonuses from pharmaceutical companies.
Concerned about the
use of unapproved medications in children and the influence of industry
money in medicine, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) has been on the
hunt for university medical researchers who do not disclose the
kickbacks they receive from pharmaceutical companies while receiving federal funding through NIH grants. His crusade
against big Pharm triggers an important question: are doctors
prescribing us medicine for our own good, or for the good of their
wallets?
"For the sake of transparency and accountability,"
Grassley said in an August 2007 speech, "shouldn't the American public
know who their doctor is taking money from? After all, anybody can go
on the Internet and see who is funding the campaigns for federally
elected officials. Because doctors are expected to look out for the
health and well-being of their patients, shouldn't we hold doctors to
similar standards?"
According to the New York Times, the
National Institutes of Health promotes medical integrity by stipulating
that researchers must report to the universities they work for earnings
of $10,000 or more per year from drug companies. Such earnings include
payment for consulting services. In turn, universities are supposed to
avoid conflicts of interest by requiring that the money be disclosed to
research subjects.
Pressure from Grassley is forcing NIH to investigate the disclosures of academics at Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of
Cincinnati and Brown University. If a conflict of interest is found, Grassley
wants NIH to revoke its grants. In all, some 20
schools and the American Psychiatric Association are also being probed.
The most recent doctor to be criticized by
the senator is Karen Wagner, a psychiatrist at the University of Texas
Medical Branch. In a September 11 Wall Street Journal report, it was
revealed that Wagner failed to disclose over $150,000 in consulting and
speaking fees she received from GlaxoSmithKline. Considering that the
doctor worked on a study for the treatment of teenage depression using
Glaxo's antidepressant Paxil, her moonlighting can easily be seen as a
major conflict of interest.
But $150,000 is a paltry sum next
to Grassley's biggest "bust." Dr. Joseph Biderman, A psychiatrist at
Harvard and Massachusetts General, failed to disclose most of the $1.6
million he received in consulting payments from Johnson & Johnson
and Eli Lilly between 2000-2007.
Medical researchers do get
money from the drug companies when they clinically test their products.
But according to the New York Times, Biderman failed to disclose to
Harvard exactly how much he earned. In 2001, for example, the
psychiatrist reported to Harvard University that he received no income
from Johnson & Johnson. When asked to check again, he said he
earned $3,500, but Sen. Grassley discovered that in actuality, Biderman
was paid $58,169 by J&J that year.
Also Interesting: