Web site to reveal doctors' ties with drug companies

Dr Jim Hazel, an endocrinologist who works as a consultant at Westmead Hospital, said the aim of the Web site was to make transparent the relationship between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry.

Although Hazel stressed the relationship between doctors and drug companies was not necessarily a bad one, he believed that in some areas there was a need to put a bit more rigour into the relationship.

Currently the Web site is still at the planning stages, and one of the decisions Hazel said which would need to be made is whether or not to gate it.

Although no definite dates have been set, Hazel said there was a very large degree of support for the project and he was hoping the site would be able to go live as soon as possible.

Initially involving doctors working at Westmead Hospital, he said there had also been interest from other doctors about the idea.

Hazel said the concept of making details of the relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies more transparent had been discussed for most of last year, with the idea of putting this on a Web site initially shaking up some people. "But I couldn't think of anything more open or transparent," he said, adding that the idea of using the Web had come from talking with lawyers he knew.

It is envisaged that details on the site could include information about any potential conflicts of interest; sponsorship of clinical trials; and details about any remuneration those involved receive.

• Related stories

• Alerts

Add your opinion

Should have been done long bef ...Keith Styles -- 26/02/02

Should have been done long before now.
A recent USA survey of doctors found over 80% had financial ties or kickbacks from drug companies.Even worse, many doctors are members of boards and committees making decisions critical to our health and those decisions may be heavily weighed in favour of the drug companies, ignoring health aspects entirely.
It is the pharmaceutical companies who finance most of the nation's drug research, here & overseas.

I've no reason to believe doctors in Australia are any better. Think carefully before accepting your doctors advice.
See the report in: JAMA February 6, 2002;287:612-617

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

I think this is a very interes ...Ben Crocker, MD -- 04/03/02

I think this is a very interesting idea. Most doctors who do business with the pharmaceutical industry say that they are not influenced in their scientific and clinical behavior by these financial relationships. On the other and, several guidelines recently published by physician organizations stress the "what would your patients and peers think" test of the appropriateness of taking gifts and honoraria. If all of this were made public, it would really encourage people to think. And it wouldn't forbid the payola process. Look at the required contribution disclosures in politics: everyone can read who is buying what politician as far as hard money goes. But outside of Maine, not much has been done to change the system of private funding of our political leadership. Disclosure hasn't stopped the process or limited the "freedom of speech" that buying political favors has been judicially referred to. But it is a beginning.
I have also thought it would be great if every physician licensed to prescribe had his or her prescribing profiles listed on a website, shorn of course of any patient identifiers, and perhaps with exceptions for those who rarely prescribe to protect confidentiality. This would redress the advantage the pharmaceutical companies have in knowing our profiles much better than we do ourselves, and let our patients in on it too. Vermont is working on a bill to license drug detailers. The whole prescription-only, extended patent system is a construction of the state, which should make the details of the business transparent to the public which authorizes it via state regulation. The principle usually has been: if the state grants a monopoly, there has to be public oversight of pricing & profits. If actually allowing patients to see physician prescribing profiles is too scarey, at least our peers and supervisors ought to be able to see them. Then we could put these figures together with how many free dinners and ski trips each doc went to. If my drug rep can buy this info, I say the state should give it away. OK, there is no free lunch, lets say make the info one of the benefits we pay for in taxes & licensing fees.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

• Just In

• Most Popular

• Most Discussed

Reader Services

Popular Topics

Essentials