Sid Wolfe on Speed (dial)

Much ado about pharma freebies to physicians. Much ado about nothing medically. Much ado about everything politically. And the media is the message.

Witness today's story about romancing medical students.

The New York Times reports that, “Most medical schools the United States fail to police adequately the money, gifts and free drug samples that pharmaceutical companies routinely shower on doctors and trainees, according to a ranking by the American Medical Student Association."

According to Dr. Brian Hurley, president of the AMSA, “These policies are incredibly important to protect the educational experience students have at school and the quality of the education they’re getting.” The Times reports that, "Schools that shield students from marketing messages will produce doctors who provide better care to patients, Dr. Hurley said."

Really? Why is that? No evidence provided. Just empty rhetoric but, since it’s in the New York Times, fit to print.

The Times’ story continues, “The role played by pharmaceutical and device makers in the education of doctors has become an increasingly controversial topic, with some top medical schools placing a growing number of restrictions on the longtime practice of providing free food, gifts and educational seminars to trainees.”

But, again, no facts to show why this isn’t anything more than a tempest in a teapot being brewed by the usual suspects.

And, speaking of the usual suspects – guess what public policy expert the Times quotes on the matter? Yup – Sid Wolfe.

“Most of the medical school bureaucracies are getting too much money and other forms of largess from the drug industry to initiate these healthy, long overdue policies on their own,” Dr. Wolfe said.

Here’s a link to the complete story in today’s Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/03conflict.html?ref=health

Where’s the other side of the argument? Invisible in today's New York Times, but it’s there. It’s important. It’s not hiding. In fact, it’s easy to find and high profile.

Consider the recent op-ed in the Boston Herald by Dennis Ausiello and Thomas P. Stossel (both of Harvard Medical School). And then consider what they have to say on the topic – balderdash!

In their own words,

“The real intent of these critics goes far beyond food and trinkets, and its true purpose is to curtail strictly or even eliminate all contacts between physicians and private industry. We strongly oppose this agenda.”

“… Despite extensive training, physicians cannot know the details of all products, especially new ones. Therefore, company salespersons complement physicians’ information derived from many sources. They tell physicians about a limited range of products about which their employers train them under strict FDA regulations.”

“… We believe that the best approach to optimize cost effectiveness of product prescribing is to promote more, not less, interaction among all stakeholders involved in health-care delivery, including company marketing reps.”

Here’s a link to their complete op-ed:

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1087609

It wasn’t hard to find. In fact, it was made easier by the fact that Dr. Stossel testified in front of Congress on this issue – recently.

Having Sid Wolfe on speed dial may be easier, but it doesn’t lead to better, more balanced or informative reporting.