Tired of professora on the drug company dole, the American Medical Student Association began looking into med school conflict of interest policies. Their latest “scorecard” is out. Tufts went for a ‘D’ to ‘A’ and is now the highest scoring medical school in Mass. Harvard and BU earn Bs and Umass gets an incomplete.
On Tufts: Tufts University School of Medicine has provided a new policy with tremendous improvements. Highlights include: a ban on gifts and samples regardless of nature, and only allows meals during CME events in accordance with ACCME standards. Disclosure is required for all facultyand administrators on an annual basis. No P&T committee member may have financial relationships with maufacturers. Payments may be received for participating in off-site CME activities with prior disclosure of industry financial support prior to commencement of activity. Payment is prohibited for merely attending. Curriculum requires a minimum of 3hrs for 1st year medical students on COI in Medicine.However, the Oversight Committee on scholarship and trainee funds reviews sponsorships exceeding $10,000 in order to prevent COI.
Both BU and Harvard get "B"s
On BU, the report reads: Covering both the medical school and its affiliated hospital, Boston University School of Medicine has strong policies that seem centered in Brennan et al. These policies could move from strong to exemplary with the addition of – for example – measures to ensure drug reps may never hand samples directly to physicians, even if physicians are required to give these samples to the pharmacy.
For Harvard, the reviewers note that the score will rise if pending proposals to tighten the school’s rules are approved.
In 2010, Harvard Medical School submitted recommendations made by its Conflict of Interest Committee in addition to pre-existing policies from both Harvard and it’s clinical affiliate hospitals. Harvard does not operate its own clinical facilities, and has many affiliate institutions, each of which has its own policies and practices. These new recommendations make strong strides towards limiting marketing influence and potential conflicts of interests at the medical school, in particular they help streamline and clarify Harvard’s policies, addressing a previous concern of AMSA that Harvard and its affiliate institutions complicated patchwork of rules could hinder their effectiveness to ameliorate conflicts of interest. Harvard joins other academic medical centers in creating a unifying set of policies which apply to all clinical settings in which faculty and students work and train. Other institutions would benefit from a similar approach.
All of the recommendations submitted to AMSA have been approved by Harvard’s Dean, some recommendations have already been implemented or have a clear timeline for implementation and these policies are included in the Harvard’s evaluation for the 2010 AMSA PharmFree Scorecard. Other recommendations are still undergoing an approval process and are not included in the 2010 scoring. However notes regarding the proposed recommendations are presented in each domain alongside the current grade.
The active 2010 recommendations increase Harvard’s scores in the domains of On-Campus Education and Scholarships. Full approval of the recommendations will increase scores in the domains of Gifts and Meals, Industry-Funded Speaking Relationships, Disclosure, Off-Campus Education, and Curriculum. Harvard’s overall evaluation for the 2010 AMSA PharmFree Scorecard remains a B.
UMass was late:
University of Massachusetts Medical School submitted a revised policy after the deadline that will be reviewed within 60 days of the launch of the 2010 Scorecard.
In regards to their previous policy, it has clear, model language throughout on industry interactions. This institution supports this strong policy with a lucid and practical frequently asked questions document. This policy received a “B” grade and relevant comments for the previous policy are listed below.