On March 28, the New York Times reported that a cancer study, conducted by Dr. Claudia Henschke of Weill Cornell Medical College in 2006, was funded in part by a little-known charity (the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment) whose proceeds are derived almost entirely from the Liggett Group, a cigarette maker.
This study, which was a heads-up to the medical establishment, showed that 80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented by a simple CT (computerized tomography) scan.
The advice, while relevant, was completely ignored in the outrage over funding sources. Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study – whose authors also received funding from the American Cancer Society to the tune of $100,000 – may actually set cancer research and project funding back a decade, because it suggests an easy remedy for lung cancer: CT scans.
The problem is not unique to Henschke’s group. In fact, Congress is considering legislation that would require drug and medical-device manufacturers to make public their payments to doctors, because more and more doctors are setting up foundations to “shelter” money from these sources.
Doctors getting money from private interests is only the tip of the iceberg, however. A recent study in Australia points to the fact that doctors are overly influenced in their choices – both when prescribing and treating illnesses – by drug and device companies who not only set up medical conferences and seminars, but actually choose the primary speechmakers at these events.
Doctors, often too busy to read the latest literature on drug and treatment options, are readily influenced by what they hear at these conferences. So much so, that your next prescription may target a novel (and potentially lucrative) new drug which has not been tested in the population for any length of time. Vioxx is one such drug, recalled in 2004 when new studies showed it caused blood clots and plaque buildup in arteries, and could lead to heart failure. Merck’s (MRK – $39.60) pre-release studies, which documented the problem, were withheld by the company as being “insignificant”.
A recent example of this drug-company influence, over both patients and prescribers, is Dr. Robert Jarvik, who promoted Lipitor on television. Lipitor’s maker, Pfizer, (PFE – $21.39) paid Jarvik $1,350,000 over two years to publicly promote the cholesterol-lowering drug. Payment has been suspended, but Jarvik, a clinician who pioneered artificial heart surgery but never actually practiced medicine, reportedly used a stunt double in some of the televised ads. The outrage (over misleading celebrity endorsements of drugs) was large and fervid, but largely ineffective. Other Jarviks will come along. Drug companies are motivated by profit margins.
To say that the medical establishment is rife with corruption would be an oversimplification and inaccurate. Many good but overly busy doctors visited weekly by pushy drug-company representatives pay attention to what they hear because they simply don’t have time to read. Others are overtly (or covertly, as in the case of setting up foundations), corrupt. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater does not resolve the problem, however, and Congress is on the right track. Regulation must come, but not at the expense of working doctors who see their 15-hour days vanish in a haze of misinformation.
Money is responsible for the gradual decay and lack of transparency in the medical profession. Uninsured patients and those on Medicare are more likely to receive a diagnosis of cancer because treating them is not profitable. It’s cheaper for hospitals, and more lucrative for unprofessional physicians, to let them die. By the same token, the richest of us now have extended lifetimes, while the poor and their children are allowed to perish of “natural” causes.
We can only transform the ethics of the medical profession, and our society in general, by turning the focus from money back to people. This broad parameter must be made to apply across all venues, from medical care to education, and has been successfully implemented in countries like Denmark, France, the UK and the Netherlands. These countries are far from perfect in their execution of social justice, but should be used as examples for a New America.
Dr. Dimitra Takos is a Newport Beach Psychologist specializing in the treatment of adolescents and adults suffering from depression, anxiety, and trauma-and stressor-related disorders.
