Despite recent proposals calling for medical professional societies to reduce or eliminate industry funding for activities, the associations cite a lack of public funding and tough economy as buffers to this request.

Most recently an April article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association called for medical associations to sever most funding from the industry, with the exception of journal advertising and exhibit hall fees. The Institute of Medicine (Washington) has also released a report that addresses these issues.

In a recent statement several medical professional societies said "they can and do have ethical, positive relationships with industry, as do others in federal and state government and the foundation community."

But public funding, particularly in the current economic climate, for education, quality initiatives and research is limited.

The groups, which issued out the statement, are American College of Radiology (ACR; Reston, Virginia) American College of Emergency Physicians, (Irving, Texas) American College of Cardiology (Washington) American College of Rheumatology (Atlanta) and American Society of Plastic Surgeons (Arlington Heights, Illinois).

The statement, which was released last Tuesday, comes on a political landscape laden with transparency policies. The biggest attention getter so far is the Physician Payments Sunshine Act – which was drafted by Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Max Baucus (D-Montana).

"Transparency is here to stay," Tom Hoffman, JD, ACR Associate General Counsel told Medical Device Daily. "Certainly the [societies'] joint statement reinforces that transparency is the norm. ACR is keenly aware of the longstanding debate in conflicts in medicine and the industry."

But the problem is of eliminating support from the industry is easier said than done according to the organizations. Previous proposals call for the associations to rely more on grant money and funding from the public sector.

In its statement, the societies said that while there is "no doubt" that more public support would be welcomed, it could possibly be "limited" to give the kind of support and buffer that the industry could for advancing quality, evidence-based care, and translation of science into clinical care guidelines. Moreover, as funding and reimbursements tighten medical practices and practitioners are likely to fall further behind in offering the most current, evidence-based care to patients as the pace of scientific progress accelerates.

Instead what the groups are proposing is to not only be more transparent with the public, but to develop a set of guidelines and rules to follow so this goal can be accomplished.

The organizations said that industry funding can be separated from product bias and be firewall-protected to:

• support continuing medical education as a means to improve quality of care and outcomes;

• accelerate translation of science to the clinical care setting;

• Support needed scientific and clinical research, as well as career development of young scientists;

• improve communication to patients about the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical/medical device products and equipment;

• improve patient and physician adherence and compliance; and address gaps in patient communication and education.

Currently, the societies adhere to Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education standards, and all have internal policies that ensure that their educational and scientific content remain unbiased. The societies claim that industry supporters also adhere to guidelines from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA; Washington) and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed; Washington). Their guidelines reinforce the fact that interactions with healthcare professionals are designed to enhance the practice of medicine and benefit patients.

In addition the groups said in the statement that they are considering the development of an ad hoc self-funded coalition for medical associations to develop and articulate best practices and a common code of ethics for managing relationships with industry. Such core principles would include Transparency, Patient Centeredness, Active Management of Conflicts of Interest, and Accountability and Reporting.

"It's a challenge to balance transparency to obtain funding from a private entity," Hoffman told MDD. "Private funding still remains a crucial source."