The problem:
Only 9% of American adults think the pharmaceutical industry is trustworthy, according to a recent Harris poll. That means that the makers of lifesaving and life-enhancing drugs rank just above tobacco companies in the public's esteem.
How could this happen?
Easily.
Despite efforts to reform the Food and Drug Administration after its scandalous failures to police drug-safety standards in the cases of Vioxx and other dangerous drugs, the FDA still does not have clear safety policies and can be too slow in responding to danger signals, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office.
Shannon Brownlee's solution:
What's needed is a new Institute for Effective Medicine, which would need to be modeled on the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect it from political pressure.
Its mission would be threefold.
It would serve as a new, independent source of research dollars for medicine. It would provide independent evaluation of data generated by industry. And it would oversee the creation of clinical practice guidelines, a manual of proven "best practices" for physicians devised entirely without industry influence.
Insider's view: It would be a good start.
Just like NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) here in the UK.
1 comment:
Thanks for posting my op-ed.
Yes, it's true, an Institute for Effective Medicine would be something like NICE, though its acronym isn't as catchy. Perhaps I need a better name for it. But whatever you call such an institute, we clearly need something here in the U.S. to provide independent funds for the right kind of clinical research.
How is NICE insulated from political pressure?
Post a Comment