Map Helps Patients Figure Out Which Doctors Just Say No
Found on Twitter: Ted Eytan, MD -- physician who is into patient empowerment and e-health has started a map for physicians to self-identify that they do not have any financial ties to big pharma or medical device manufacturers.
Dr. Eytan describes “no financial ties” as “no financial interest or ties to, and have not received any honoraria from, pharmaceutical or device manufacturers.”
It's new, and so far, Dr. Eytan himself is the only one identified on the map has having no financial ties. You can find the map here.
Dr. Eytan believes, as many of us do, that when doctors are subsidized by those who profit from drugs and devices, then they are no longer providing objective medical advice to their patients. Drug company A pays the doctor for prescribing its drug. Drug Company B does not. Which prescription is she or he going to write? Even if it's more expensive for you, and may not be a better drug for you?
How big a problem is it? Some doctors are making millions on those kickbacks and payments. Some have lost their jobs over it. It's such a problem that some health organizations are beginning to take drastic steps to uncover their own doctors' ties. At least when they are forthcoming, we patients can make better decisions. It's called transparency.
So -- knowing those listings aren't on the map yet -- how can you help?
By asking that question of YOUR physicians. "Doctor. Do you have any financial interests in drug or device companies?"
"No? Well then, here's a web address for a map -- will you proudly tell the world you are free of that kind of encumbrance, and therefore you are able to provide your patients with far more objective treatment advice, far more helpful to them than to your own wallet?"
Of course, if your doctor says, "yes" he does have financial ties -- well then, you have some good information about that doctor that will give you a clue as to whether or not you can trust his or her advice.
Just so you know -- there's also a website with a searchable database called "No Free Lunch" that has the same purpose. If you want to check out your own doctor, you can do so.
Neither Dr. Eytan's map, nor No Free Lunch will showcase all the physicians who are un-pharma-encumbered. Nor will every doctor listed be truly untied from pharma financially -- we have to guess that some who make the claim may be accepting gifts, money and travel hoping no one will expose them.
But we have to start somewhere, and these two sites are a good place to do so. A hearty thanks from this patient empowerment preacher to both.
PS -- why not follow me on Twitter?
..............................................
Photo © Microsoft Image Gallery


Comments
This is an incredible idea…I love innovation. It’s also great to see that someone who is part of “the club” is willing to create a tool promoting transparency.
I just want to add some caveats to the mix so we don’t think of financial ties as black and white areas, but some gray may exist. I do believe that bonuses for writing specific prescriptions does happen, but I’ve found that it’s often related to drugs used by the masses. Think about anti-biotics, cholesterol medication, and anti-depressants. These are areas where there are huge numbers of patients and the pharma companies are vying for their patronage.
On the other hand if you begin to create a sub-set within the medical community and start to view specialists we may see a different version of the story. I’m not saying that the doctor isn’t receiving financial gain, but think of an oncologist. Do you really believe the oncologist isn’t going to prescribe the gold standard because the pharma company provided a dinner or a trip? If you do believe that then you should be bringing the doctor up on criminal charges.
Those treating specialized diseases, may be receiving “perks”, but there are standards of care that ethical physicians follow. Let’s take it one step further an not throw the book at doctors who are evaluating data from studies or conducting community clinical trials as being on the take.
I understand the concern, but my experience is that those prescribing the most prescribed medications are at greatest risk for influence. Lumping everyone together just doesn’t seem fair.
Think about the popular magazines where the pharma companies run ads. The purpose is to get the patient to go in and specifically ask for the drug. If 100 of Dr. X’s patients come in and ask for the drug they saw in the magazine and he prescribes it on their request and then receives a bonus isn’t the patient and the magazine part of the equation?