UVa posting its doctors’ financial deals online

The University of Virginia has begun posting its doctors’ financial dealings online for the world to see.

It’s a decision that mirrors a national trend in the health-care industry toward stricter reporting standards and also part of a years-long progression at UVa toward greater transparency.

Roughly a year ago, UVa banned the ubiquitous prescription-themed loot — mugs, clipboards, pens and the like — that once stocked medical faculty’s drawers, desks and pockets.

UVa Health System spokesman David Foreman said officials worried patients might take a doctor or nurse’s use of the freebies as an implied endorsement.

And doctors’ relationships with outside business interests are still permitted, but now must be posted online.

“If these relationships are there, there’s nothing wrong with disclosing them,” Foreman said.

The moves put UVa in line with national trends toward stricter disclosure.

Recently a major medical journal group, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, agreed that scientists submitting material will have to disclose a wide array of potential conflicts ofinterest: potentially including their political views and minor children’s’ financial situations.

And a bill has been introduced in Congress that would require medical companies to put a listing of their payments to physicians online. The bill is currently in committee.

One professional organization gave the UVa moves limited praise. “The National Physicians Alliance applauds the University of Virginia School of Medicine for publicly disclosing by name all large industry payments to its faculty members,” wrote Dr. Jean Silver-Isenstadt, the group’s executive director, in an e-mail. “The first step to eliminating conflicts of interest in medicine is to acknowledge the scope of industry relationships with physicians and to examine them. This is a great step in the right direction.”

The American Medical Student Association, which is loosely affiliated with the NPA, rates UVa’s medical conflict-of-interest policies as a “B.” The group lists the university’s reporting policies as good, but not model, policies.

Companies are still allowed to have business relationships with doctors. And they can give donations to the School of Medicine itself, though they can no longer say how the money is to be used.

Free samples of drugs for patients are still accepted, but are strictly tracked.

And the university is cracking down on participation in corporate speakers’ bureaus. In the last year, which is reflected in the data just reported, three faculty members reported working on the bureaus.

But that’s banned now, Foreman said.

A handful of faculty members are on advisory boards for companies, including pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly & Co. and Merck.

Likewise, the site lists other consulting activities doctors engage in. Some of the companies overlap with the firms owned by doctors, and lots of the consulting involves reviewing medical documents and activities related to medical research. But there are also several doctors who consult with law firms about court cases, and even one doctor on the board of directors of Virginia National Bank.

Other, miscellaneous relationships are listed, too. That information includes plenty of entries related to scientific writing, among other things.

All four categories — speaking bureaus, advisory committees, consultancies and other businesses — are only reported if the doctor pulls down more than $10,000 a year from the relationship.

Staff also own significant (more than 3 percent) stakes in separate companies. The firms run the gamut from the expected — Gene Solutions LLC and NanoMedical Systems, for example — to the oddball — such as Camryn Executive Transportation and Limousine and Feather Your Nest Interiors.

The site also lists industry sponsorship of grants and contracts, a long list.

The Institute of Medicine, the independent, nonprofit health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, addressed conflict of interest involving medical companies and industry in an April report.

The report found problems ranging from physicians failing to report income from pharmaceutical companies to their home institutions to corporate and academic scientists delaying or deep-sixing the publication of results from unfavorable clinical trials.

“Disclosure of financial relationships with industry is an essential, though limited, first step in identifying and responding to conflicts of interest,” the report reads, in part.

The report calls for standardized reporting between institutions and a federal intervention to make reporting public.

Faculty members at UVa use a standard questionnaire to report relationships, Foreman said. Nothing was turned up in the reporting process that needed to be addressed, he said.

“[Pharmaceutical companies] do play a very important role in continuing the funding of some of the research, but this just makes sure that there’s no question in anybody’s mind,” Foreman said.