More news: IOM urges entities involved in research to monitor conflict of interest
Medical Staff Leader Connection, May 6, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
A report issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimates that half of all medical research conducted in the United States is financed through corporations. Therefore, the IOM urges institutions and physicians involved in medical research to create solid conflict of interest policies that address conflicts at the institutional and individual levels.
Of particular interest to medical staffs, the report recommends that governing boards of medical institutions create standing committees to oversee conflicts of interest at the institutional level. The report offers guidelines for institutions to use when developing a conflict of interest policy.
Moreover, the IOM urges institutions that represent academic medical centers, physicians, researchers, and research sponsors work together to “develop consensus on standard content, format, and procedures for the disclosure of financial relationships.” Doing so will make disclosure easier for institutions and individuals that must report their financial relationships to more than one entity.
IOM also recommends that Congress create a national program that would require pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies to publicly report payments to physicians, researchers, healthcare institutions, professional societies, patient advocacy and disease-specific groups, and providers of continuing medical education.
Read “Hospitals doing more to manage doctors’ industry ties,” a recent Medical Staff Briefing article to learn more.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
-
The Greeley Guide to Physician Employment and Contracting
Attract high-quality physicians and enhance physician-hospital relations with the help of The Greeley Guide to Physician...
-
Manage Aging and Potentially Impaired Physicians:
As the wave of Baby Boomers peaks, an increasing number of physicians are approaching retirement age. Although not all aging...
-
The Final Verdict on MS.01.01.01:
The Joint Commission has finalized and communicated the changes to MS.01.01.01. This program will not restate what you...
-
The Greeley Guide to Medical Staff Bylaws, Third Edition
More than just boilerplate language, this easy-to-use resource empowers you with implementation strategies, tools, and...
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HIPAA Q&A: Flu shot requirement for hospital employees
- HealthDataInsights posts new issues for medical necessity claims
- Running an effective peer review committee meeting
- Q&A: Incidental disclosures and patient privacy
- New FAQ posted on storing laryngoscope blades
- Sneak Peek: Effort underway to establish caseload benchmarks
- Tip: Perform your own internal investigation prior to government audit
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- HIPAA 5010 deadline extended, but threat remains, says AMA
- HHS task force: Consider privacy, security with text messages
- E-mailed
-
- Running an effective peer review committee meeting
- HIPAA Q&A: Flu shot requirement for hospital employees
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- HHS task force: Consider privacy, security with text messages
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Tip: Correctly code bilateral pain management procedures
- 2012 CPT code changes for ASCs: Shoulder and knee scopes and pain management
- COT basics to best
- Documentation and coding for toxic metabolic encephalopathy
- Guidance and tact key to compliant, effective physician queries
- Searched