The authors warned that failure to enact such a standard will most likely lead to Big Brother involvement—ie, formal government regulation.

In the article, experts said the healthcare industry’s integrity and patient care are being undermined and that existing guidelines are ineffective. “Arguably, the most challenging and extensive of these conflicts emanate from the relationships between physicians…and medical device manufacturers,” the authors wrote.

While this debate isn’t new, the group’s recommendations are a major high-profile effort by the medical community to curb much of the financial activity occurring between OEMs and surgeons. And the timing of this article’s release doesn’t seem especially surprising, given all the recent congressional investigations, federal prosecutions and class action lawsuits that have provided the public insight into the device industry’s promotional activities.

Mark Leahey, executive director of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, asserted to one newspaper covering the topic that innovative devices are developed through collaborations between physicians and engineers and that the complexity of these devices requires vendors to train doctors who use them. Therefore, the device industry shouldn’t necessarily be held to these standards.

While I can understand the rationale behind limiting payments to doctors who may speak at an orthopedic trade show or author a paper, etc, I would hope the watchdogs don’t want to somehow limit a device company’s involvement in the OR. Would you want to be a patient receiving a new implant technology and not have the implant salesman in the OR to guide the surgeon, if needed?

As a patient who is acutely aware of doctors being influenced by sales reps—my physician’s office is supremely guilty of displaying various branded tissue boxes, pens and other promotions—I still can’t help but think that in such a competitive industry as orthopedics, it’s a bit unrealistic to think that a company isn’t going to try anything it can to get ahead of the competition. Is that so wrong in business? And does it truly compromise patient care that much? Many will wholeheartedly say, “Yes” and “Yes.” I’m not so sure, though.

In other news, I am pleased to introduce a new column on patent law (see page 18). Our columnist, R. Joseph Trojan of Trojan Law Offices, is a registered patent attorney and intellectual property trial lawyer with 18 years of experience. Each issue, he will offer practical advice for your business—a welcome addition to this publication!

Jennifer Whitney
Editor