I edited the top portion at 8:14 pm ET, a few minutes after posting, adding the “key difference” paragraph. Sunday morning, added the Klick Pharma item under Income.
Last month in Cambridge I met Twitter friend Bryan Vartabedian MD (Twitter @Doctor_V) at a meeting at Vertex Pharmaceuticals. We’ll cross paths this fall on the conference speaking circuit. Today on his blog he raised a rowdy, rough, but valid point: as e-patients (obviously including me) get into the business, should they/we be regulated? He said:
- Will industry be required to publicly list monies used for sponsorship, travel and swag support of high profile patients in the social sphere?
- Should high visibility patients who serve as stewards and advocates disavow themselves of contact with pharma just as many academic medical centers have begun?
As is often the case, I don’t have an answer. I’m just raising the questions.
Smart questions. My short answer:
- Fine with me if industry discloses those payments. Nothing to hide.
- Otoh, I think it’s nuts and counterproductive for consumers in any industry to disconnect.
Academic medical centers have tons of evidence of influence corrupting the academic processes that are at the core of (supposed) science. For patient advocates I don’t see that there’s currently a problem that would justify adding regulators, the ensuing budget impact, etc.
Besides, there’s a key difference: academics are supposed to vet industry. It’s their job in this context. Patients, on the other hand, are the consumers – the ones the industry’s supposed to serve.
As @Doctor_V suggests, healthcare is changing now that industry recognizes patients are worth engaging with. (I presume I’m one of his “high visibility” patients.) And this turned out to be the right time for some thoughts I’ve been meaning to express about my own work.
Introductory principles: [Read more…]