Another Wheel Already Invented (in 1988) - the WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion

At the 2010 Gezonde Scepsis (Healthy Skepticism) "Selling Sickness" conference, I was made aware of another wheel invented a long time ago, the 1988 WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, a document about which few now seem to be aware.  Were this code to have been widely followed, it might have prevented some of the problems afflicting the pharmaceutical industry today.

Some relevant quotes follow:

Drug Promotion

6. In this context, 'promotion' refers to all informational and persuasive activities by manufacturers and distributors, the effect of which is to induce the prescription, supply, purchase and/or use of medicinal drugs.

7. Active promotion within a country should take place only with respect to drugs legally available in the country. Promotion should be in keeping with national health policies and in compliance with national regulations, as well as with voluntary standards where they exist. All promotion-making claims concerning medicinal drugs should be reliable, accurate, truthful, informative, balanced, up-to-date, capable of substantiation and in good taste. They should not contain misleading or unverifiable statements or omissions likely to induce medically unjustifiable drug use or to give rise to undue risks. The word 'safe' should only be used if properly qualified. Comparison of products should be factual, fair and capable of substantiation. Promotional material should not be designed so as to disguise its real nature.

8. Scientific data in the public domain should be made available to prescribers and any other person entitled to receive it, on request, as appropriate to their requirements. Promotion in the form of financial or material benefits should not be offered to or sought by health care practitioners to influence them in the prescription of drugs.

9. Scientific and educational activities should not be deliberately used for promotional purposes.

Note that these provisions would seem to prohibit promotional efforts begun before a drug is legally approved (e.g., ghost-writing as in this case), the use of "key opinion leaders" without full disclosure of their role as marketers of drugs, suppression of clinical research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies whose results did not support these companies' marketing interests, e.g. studies which failed to show efficacy of their products, nearly all kinds of payments to physicians, and nearly all pharmaceutical sponsored continuing medical education.

Medical Representatives

17. Medical representatives should have an appropriate educational background. They should be adequately trained. They should possess sufficient medical and technical knowledge and integrity to present information on products and carry out other promotional activities in an accurate and responsible manner. Employers are responsible for the basic and continuing training of their representatives. Such training should include instruction regarding appropriate ethical conduct taking into consideration the WHO criteria. In this context, exposure of medical representatives and trainees to feed-back from the medical and allied professions and from independent members of the public, particularly regarding risks, can be salutary.

18. Medical representatives should make available to prescribers and dispensers complete and unbiased information for each product discussed, such as an approved scientific data sheet or other source of information with similar content.

19. Employers should be responsible for the statements and activities of their medical representatives. Medical representatives should not offer inducements to prescribers and dispensers. Prescribers and dispensers should not solicit such inducements. In order to avoid over-promotion, the main part of the remuneration of medical representatives should not be directly related to the volume of sales they generate.

Note that these provisions appear to prohibit the current cheer leader/ ex-athlete model of the drug representative, and to prohibit many of the current activities of such representative, including providing gifts, meals, travel to meetings, honoraria, etc  (e.g., see posts here and here).

If only these standards had gotten some traction, think of the trouble that could have been averted.  On the other hand, it is obvious that such traction would have threatened some peoples' lucrative incomes and power, who may have worked hard to make sure it did not happen.

That Wheel Was Already Invented: the UN Special Rapporteur's Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies

For five years now, we have been writing about concentration and abuse of power in health care, and on specific tactics used predominantly by large health care organizations that threaten the values that physicians and other health care professionals once swore to uphold.

Pharmaceutical companies may not have been the worst offenders when it came to threatening these values, but they have not been laggards.  Specific issues we have discussed included (in a peculiar order that I will explain in a minute): failure of the companies' boards of directors to be accountable for misbehavior by its management, sometimes associated with conflicts of interest affecting these board members (e.g., this recent case); outright crime and corruption (e.g., this case); use of key opinion leaders paid by the company to market products cloaked in the mantle of academia; payments made by the companies to patient advocacy groups (e.g., this one), medical societies, and academic institutions that induce institutional conflicts of interest, and enlist these well-reputed organizations as stealth marketers; ridiculously high prices charged for particular medicines, often to particularly vulnerable patients (e.g., this case); suppression and manipulation of clinical research evaluating the companies' products; and deceptive drug marketing practices.

Many other bloggers have written about these issues.  Some of them have been widely taken up in the mainstream media.  A few have even made it into the medical and health care literature. 

But those of us who bring them up have been attacked as a tiny group of pharmascolds (e.g., here), who get in the way of the needed innovation and scientific advances that the pharmaceutical industry generously brings to the public.  Despite such attacks, it may be that our concerns are somewhat more universal, although those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo might not want that publicized too much.

A new issue of PLoS Medicine included several articles on drug companies' responsibilities for human rights.  One was by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health.  I, and I suspect most of even our Health Care Renewal readers were not familiar with that office.  I also confess to being unaware that he had published a report to the UN General Assembly entitled Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in Relation to Access to Medicines, which included 47 specific guidelines. 

Amazingly enough, it turns out that some of these guidelines seemed to directly address the issues raised above, to wit:

Board of Directors' Accountability

11. The company should have a governance system that includes direct board level responsibility and accountability for its access to medicines policy.

Anti-Corruption

15. A company should publicly adopt effective anti-corruption policies and measures, and comply with relevant national law implementing the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

Disclosure of Financial Support

18. The company should annually disclose its financial and other support to key opinion leaders, patient associations, political parties and candidates, trade associations, academic departments, research centres and others, through which it seeks to influence public policy and national, regional and international law and practice. The disclosure should extend to amounts, beneficiaries and channels by which the support is provided.

19. When providing any financial or other support, the company should require all recipients to publicly disclose such support on all appropriate occasions.

Drug Pricing

33. When formulating and implementing its access to medicines policy, the company should consider all the arrangements at its disposal with a view to ensuring that its medicines are affordable to as many people as possible. In keeping with Guideline 5, the company should give particular attention to ensuring its medicines are accessible to disadvantaged individuals, communities and populations, including those living in poverty and the very poorest in all markets. The arrangements should include, for example, differential pricing between countries, differential pricing within countries, commercial voluntary licences, not-for-profit voluntary licences, donation programmes, and public private partnerships.

34. The arrangements should take into account a country’s stage of economic development, as well as the differential purchasing power of populations within a country. The same medicine, for example, may be priced and packaged differently for the private and public sectors within the same country.

35. The arrangements should extend to all medicines manufactured by the company, including those for non-communicable conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes.

Suppression and Manipulation of Clinical Research

39. The company should take effective measures to ensure that all information bearing upon the safety, efficacy and possible side effects of a medicine are easily accessible to individuals so they can make informed decisions about its possible use.

Deceptive Drug Marketing

41. The company should publicly disclose its promotional and marketing policies and activities, including costs.

Needless to say, I can see no evidence that any big pharmaceutical companies are trying to adhere to any of these guidelines.  Somehow I suspect that those who are supporting the vested interests of big pharmaceutical corporations may not all have that much respect for the United Nations.  However, I think that the Special Rapporteur's guidelines lend more credibility to the argument that we need better leadership of health care organizations, and specifically that such organizations should follow clear ethical precepts, and their leadership should be held accountable when they do not.

So the next time someone calls you a "pharmascold," you can say, "yeah, yeah, so is the UN Special Rapporteur."

New CMS Chief Donald Berwick: a Trojan Horse for Quackery?

On July 7, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Dr. Berwick, a pediatrician, is well known as the CEO of the non-profit Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), which "exists to close the enormous gap between the health care we have and the health care we should have — a gap so large in the US that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2001 called it a 'quality chasm'.” Dr. Berwick was one of the authors of that IOM report. His IHI has been a major player in the patient safety movement, most notably with its "100,000 Lives Campaign" and, more recently, its "5 Million Lives Campaign."

Berwick's CMS gig is a "recess appointment": it was made during the Senate's July 4th recess period, without a formal confirmation hearing---although such a hearing must take place before the end of this Senate term, if he is to remain in the position. A recent story suggested that Obama made the recess appointment in order to avoid a reprise of "last year's divisive health care debate." The president had originally nominated Berwick for the position in April, and Republicans have opposed "Berwick's views on rationing of care," claiming that he "would deny needed care based on cost."

A "Patient-Centered Extremist"

If there is a problem with the appointment, it is likely to be roughly the opposite of what Republicans might suppose: Dr. Berwick is a self-described "Patient-Centered Extremist." He favors letting patients have the last word in decisions about their care even if that means, for example, choosing to have unnecessary and expensive hi-tech studies. In an article for Health Affairs published about a year ago, he explicitly argued against the "professionally dominant view of quality of health care":

I think it wrong for the profession of medicine—or any other health care profession, for that matter—to “reserve to itself the authority to judge the quality of its work.” I eschew compromise words like “partnership.” For better or worse, I have come to believe that we—patients, families, clinicians, and the health care system as a whole—would all be far better off if we professionals recalibrated our work such that we behaved with patients and families not as hosts in the care system, but as guests in their lives. I suggest that we should without equivocation make patient-centeredness a primary quality dimension all its own, even when it does not contribute to the technical safety and effectiveness of care.

A new definition. My proposed definition of “patient-centered care” is this: The experience (to the extent the informed, individual patient desires it) of transparency, individualization, recognition, respect, dignity, and choice in all matters, without exception, related to one’s person, circumstances, and relationships in health care.

Does this mean that Dr. Berwick would also eschew professional, i.e., expert, judgment in favor of patients' wishes? In a word, yes:

Evidence-based medicine sometimes must take a back seat. First, leaving choice ultimately up to the patient and family means that evidence-based medicine may sometimes take a back seat. One e-mail correspondent asked me, “Should patient ‘wants’ override professional judgment about whether an MRI is needed?” My answer is, basically, “Yes.” On the whole, I prefer that we take the risk of overuse along with the burden of giving real meaning to the phrase “a fully informed patient.”

Dr. Berwick is not so naive as this opinion might suggest. He envisions a "mature dialogue" in such a case, and argues that "if, over time, a pattern emerges of scientifically unwise or unsubstantiated choices...then we should seek to improve our messages..." He also admits that there might be an occasional patient whose demands are so unreasonable that "it is time to say, 'No'." That exception, he argues, should not dictate the rule.

There are situations in which most civilized people would agree with Dr. Berwick's view of 'patient-centeredness'. In both the Health Affairs article and in his recent address to the 2010 graduating class of the Yale School of Medicine, he offered real examples of petty, arbitrary hospital rules causing unnecessary sorrow for patients and their loved ones. It is in such contexts that he makes a convincing case that health professionals ought to behave "as guests in their lives." In an interview for the New York Times, he argued:

We don’t have a standard of services or processes that are comfortable for patients. We have built a technocratic castle, and when people come into it, they are intimidated.

Nothing to disagree with there. To create that standard, moreover, would not undermine settled medical practice ethics---it would celebrate them, even as it rightly embarrasses the profession for having taken so long to do so.


Enter the Woo

Eschewing the scientific basis for modern medical practice, however, is another matter. In February of 2009, Dr. Berwick gave a 'keynote' address at the IOM and Bravewell Collaborative-sponsored Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public. He shared the podium with Mehmet Oz, Dean Ornish, Senator Tom Harkin, and other advocates of pseudoscientific health claims. I wrote about the conference at the time, mainly to call attention to its misleading use of the term "integrative medicine": literature emanating from the Summit characterized it as "preventive" and "patient-centered," whereas the only characteristic that distinguishes it from modern medicine is an inclusion of various forms of pseudomedicine.


I noticed that Dr. Berwick was on the speaker roster, which I found disappointing: I imagined that he had either gone over to the Dark Side or, perhaps, was sufficiently naive about the topic to have been duped; or, more likely, that he had cynically accepted the offer to further his ambitions. I didn't bother to listen to his speech until the CMS appointment was announced a few days ago.

It is troubling, to say the least. Dr. Berwick did not argue, as he had in the NYT piece, that "If we doctors feel a person is going to make unwise choices, we have to take on the responsibility of being teachers, educators and informers." Rather, he praised his fellow speakers, most of whom were spouting nonsense, for their "reach" and "eloquence." He praised the IOM for its "glorious record...in pursuit of better designs in health care...traditional, allopathic curative care and now migrating into this distinguished and important new arena." He mentioned homeopathy and acupuncture, not to wonder why they should be promoted as effective, but merely to warn that they will fail---presumably in some economic sense---if they try to compete with each other for reimbursement.

Such language, and Dr. Berwick's very presence at the Summit, were a far cry from advocating "patient-centeredness." What they amounted to was a generous endorsement of pseudoscientific practices and of the socio-political movement that promotes them. Even granting some naivete on his part (he called himself "an amateur at this topic"), he must have known this. Such an endorsement, unlike tearing down the "technocratic castle," has ethical implications at least as profound as those that Dr. Berwick tacitly or explicitly relies upon to support his arguments for patient-centeredness.

"Physicians have no Immunity to Moral or Ethical Constraints"

The relevant medical ethics treatises (reviewed here) are in substantial agreement that it is unethical for physicians to prescribe scientifically implausible methods or to refer patients to other practitioners for the same purpose. They are also in agreement that it is unethical to prescribe a placebo to a patient while claiming that the treatment has specific biologic activity---a point that has been vigorously argued in the UK this year, with regard to homeopathy. These ethical tenets are not mere odes to nerdy, sciency thinking; they are matters of honesty and integrity---fundamental bases for ethical interactions between physicians and patients.

In 1983, philosophers Clark Glymour and Douglas Stalker published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Engineers, cranks, physicians, magicians.” They framed modern medicine as follows, comparing it to what was then called "holistic medicine" (the article is quoted extensively here):

Medicine in industrialized nations is scientific medicine. The claim tacitly made by American or European physicians, and tacitly relied on by their patients, is that their palliatives and procedures have been shown by science to be effective. Although the physician’s medical practice is not itself science, it is based on science and on training that is supposed to teach physicians to apply scientific knowledge to people in a rational way.

The practice of medicine in the United States and in other industrialized nations is a form of consultant engineering...

That statement is just as accurate now---even more so, in this era of Evidence-Based Medicine---as it was nearly 30 years ago, even if some might find the likening of medicine to engineering displeasing. Nor is it at odds with almost any definition of "patient-centeredness," other than one that presumes that the patient's desires trump the physician's ethics:

A physician engineer can act as consoler; nothing in either logic or social psychology forbids it. But certain combinations are impossible or extraordinarily unlikely. A physician engineer cannot honestly claim powers of magic or occult knowledge. The principles governing scientific reasoning and belief are negative as well as positive, and they imply that occult doctrines are not worthy of belief. Moreover, physician engineers have no immunity to moral or ethical constraints. On the contrary, they are by training and by culture enmeshed in a tradition of rational thought about
the obligations and responsibilities of their profession.

Dr. Berwick---if he really believes what his presence and words at the "Integrative Medicine" Summit imply---is playing with ethical fire. (If, as I hope, he doesn't really believe those things, he's playing with ethics of another kind). Will we begin to see pseudomedicine "integrated" into Medicare and Medicaid? That is certainly the expectation of those who observed Dr. Berwick's performance at the Summit, and who appear intent to hold him to his word.

KA

Two other blogs that have addressed this issue are:

Dr. RW: Not only evidence based medicine but science based medicine may take a back seat in Donald Berwick's vision for patient centered care

Dr. David Gorski: Dr. Donald Berwick and “patient-centered” medicine: Letting the woo into the new health care law?

BLOGSCAN: CMSS New Ethics Code Analyzed

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies got some good press for its new code of ethics regarding medical associations' interaction with industry.  Two of the best skeptical bloggers about health care dissected the code, suggesting it will not be as tough as it was cracked up to be.  See these posts by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog and by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

Merck Settles Another Vioxx Case

All the shenanigans that went on in the course of Merck's marketing of the now withdrawn Cox-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx have provided grist for the Health Care Renewal mill since 2005.  For example, see these posts:

- here about ghost-writing of a Vioxx research publication;
- here, and here about allegations that Merck executives tried to intimidate Vioxx critics;
- here about how advocates of an extreme laissez faire approach to regulation of health care corporations used illogical arguments about the Vioxx case;
- here about how an apparently major clinical trial of Vioxx turned out to be a "seeding trial," that is, a study really meant to recruit supposed physician-researchers as prescribers; and
- here about how one once prominent Vioxx researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with his research on other drugs. 

Thus, the Vioxx case provides a good lesson about some of the tactics used to deceptively and unethically promote health care products (pharmaceuticals in this case).

Merck just announced just the latest settlement of Vioxx related legal actions, as reported by Business Week:

Merck & Co. agreed to settle shareholder lawsuits over the withdrawn Vioxx painkiller by strengthening its drug-safety procedures, appointing a new chief medical officer and paying $12.2 million in legal fees.

Merck would appoint one committee to address risks that require immediate action and another to monitor the safety of drugs, the company said in a regulatory filing. Merck would also amend its code of conduct to promote scientific and academic integrity as well 'honest communication' with doctors.

'In all research endeavors that are sponsored by Merck, we will refrain from attempting to influence inappropriately the results and conclusions of such research,' according to the amended code. 'We strive for all communications with the medical community to be accurate, truthful and consistent with labeling.'

Also,

The company will be required to make corporate governance changes and “supplement existing policies and procedures,” ... [a Merck spokesperson] said.

Merck would submit results of clinical trials to a public registry, with its compliance overseen by an independent third party.

The chief medical officer will have an 'executive voice' on product safety issues independent of Merck Research Laboratories.

Note that this settlement is only of one type of lawsuit, as described in a Wall Street Journal article,

The pact, which is pending final court approval, would resolve state and federal shareholder 'derivative' complaints (which are brought by shareholders on behalf of a company) alleging that current and former Merck officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties in handling Vioxx.

Merck had already settled thousands of lawsuits,

Since the Vioxx controversy erupted, about 27,000 personal-injury lawsuits have been filed, the company says. Merck has been challenging all of the cases and settled many of them. Most notably, it agreed to a pay $4.85 billion to settle personal-injury claims of more than 40,000 people. In another settlement, the company will pay $80 million to resolve 190 claims filed by drug-benefit plans seeking to recover costs of paying for Vioxx use.

Merck has lots of other legal actions to go through,

The Vioxx litigation remains far from over. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a separate shareholder case, seeking billions of dollars in damages from the company. Merck disclosed last year the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston was conducting a grand-jury investigation of Merck's handling of Vioxx. The claims of some 310 plaintiff groups are outstanding in courts in the U.S., according to the securities filing. There are also cases overseas, including Australia and Turkey.

So the parade of legal actions and settlements thereof continues.  We believe that the scope of this parade provides some sort of index of bad behavior by the health care organizations needing to make such settlements.  Most of these legal results are reported on in the business media, and rarely appear in any medical, health care research, or health policy journals.  I submit that were health care professionals, health care researchers, and health policy makers more systematically aware of these cases, they might realize that unethical and sometimes illegal behavior, often generated by bad leadership unrestrained by poor organizational governance, is a major cause of the current, seemingly intractable health care crisis.

One notable attribute of the current Vioxx settlement is that it does mandate some changes in Merck's governance and leadership meant to prevent future cases similar to this one.  These include developing leadership structures and changing the company's code of conduct to emphasize the need for "truthful" communication, and the need to refrain from "inappropriately" influencing research. 

On Health Care Renewal we have discussed numerous examples of deceptive practices by health care organizations, often affecting marketing, and of manipulation and suppression of research.  It is a small step forward for one company to commit to honest communications and to not manipulate research.  A better code of conduct may at least be a start towards an organizational ethics policy, which in turn may have the potential to actually improve behavior. 

On the other hand, typical settlements that involve only monetary damages paid by the organization seem to have little deterrent effect on future bad behavior. Usually, the companies involved only need to pay fines, and no individual who performed, directed or approved unethical or illegal acts suffers any negative consequences. I submit once again that such fines are viewed merely as costs of doing business by the affected companies, and do not deter future bad behavior. Until the people who approve, direct, and perform unethical or illegal acts pay some penalties, expect such acts to continue, at best deterred only slightly by written policies that condemn them. I again suggest that to truly reform health care, we need rigorous regulation of health care organizations that has the power to deter unethical behavior that may risk patients' health

Why Are Health Care Organizations' Ethics Codes News?

This just in from the Orlando Sentinel,

The head of Central Florida's largest blood bank told Florida senators Wednesday that she has completely overhauled the operation — from the boardroom to the bloodmobile.

'Believe me, I get it,' an apologetic Anne Chinoda told members of a committee investigating the business ways of Florida's Blood Centers and other blood banks across the state.

Chinoda said FBC now prohibits board members from doing business with the agency, has instituted nine-year term limits for board members and has put together a group to review executive compensation. She also unveiled a blood-donor bill of rights she promised to publicize.

Sen. Don Gaetz, chairman of the health regulation committee that asked Chinoda to appear, said he was pleased by her testimony. 'What we saw today was an admission of inappropriate practices in the past and a promise they will be fixed,' he said.

These new ethical standards were a response to a past controversy,

Gaetz's committee has been investigating FBC, which generates $100 million in revenues annually, and the statewide industry since the summer.

The inquiry was triggered in part by a series of stories in the Orlando Sentinel that showed FBC board members have sold millions of dollars in goods and services to the agency each year; that board members had no term limits; and that Chinoda was compensated nearly $600,000 annually. Her salary was not discussed at the hearing.

Like others in the industry, FBC gets its blood for free from donors, tests and repackages it. FBC then sells the blood to 70 hospitals and medical facilities in 21 counties in Central and South Florida.

How often do you hear pleas from local blood banks about urgent shortages?  How often do you donate blood, or feel bad because you did not or could not donate?  Many people who selflessly donate blood were likely unpleasantly surprised to find out that blood banks sell (at a high price) the blood they donated, and used the proceeds to pay their executives generous salaries, and pay vendors run by their board members.

Here was another example of a previously revered local, not-for-profit health care institution run apparently for the personal benefit of its top insider leaders.

Why was it news when the organization in question adopted a code of conduct that limited self-dealing by board members, limited board members to only(?) nine-year terms, and put in place some sort or organized process to set the CEO's compensation?  Do those not seem like they ought to be standard, and not  newsworthy practices?

Similarly, an article in the Newark Star-Ledger back in November recounted how  Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, whose board members had been accused of self-dealing (see this post), and to which a New Jersey state legislator had been convicted of selling his services (see this post), had instituted "tightened ethics rules," including a provision that "board members will no longer be allowed to do business with the hospital."  Again, why should a rule like this be news?  One of the duties of board members of all not-for-profit organizations is the duty of loyalty, "a standard of faithfulness; a board member must give undivided allegiance when making decisions affecting the organization."  Overpaying crony executives and authorizing business dealings with one's own business seem to obviously violate this duty.

We have noted how the business culture of health care organizations has increasingly come to resemble the larger business culture in an era of laissez-faire capitalism and the rise of new oligarchs and robber barons.  So it is telling that it was also news when UBS, a large international bank enacted a code of ethics for its employees that required them to actually comply with "foreign tax reporting rules," (per Bloomberg.)

One would have once thought that health care organizations, given their responsibilities for human life and health, and their formerly sterling reputations, would have clear, comprehensive codes of ethics that are actually enforced.   But it is news when a health care organization develops such a code (and it still may be news when such a code is enforced.) 

This post summarized some current thinking on organizational ethics policies.  In conclusion, I asked readers to think about whether their own health care organization had anything resembling such a policy.  I suspect few could identify such policies. 

Health care professionals need to inquire why health care organizations, including drug, device, biotechnology and health care information technology companies,  health care insurers, to hospitals, academic medical centers, and medical schools, etc, almost never have real organizational ethics policies.  Of course, the suspicion is that lack of such policies makes it easier for insiders to direct the organization for their personal benefit.  At least if we could make such policies the norm, we could remind organizational leaders that they are supposed to be upholding the mission, not lining their pockets.