Alternative Revenue Stream for Private Practice Physicians – Research Investigator

Clinical research is the only way [for a physician in the managed care era] to make a boat payment, quips David Stark, M.D.

 

With increasing frequency, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are turning to physicians in private practice, rather than academic medical centers, to serve as investigators overseeing the 60,000-odd clinical trials each year, between 80 and 90% of which are funded by industry as opposed to, say, NIH. Academic medical centers are losing the “business,” having fallen from 63% to 26% as the site for clinical research between 1994 and 2004. While it might be argued that trials in the private practice setting produce superior results because they occur under circumstances that more closely resemble how the drug or device will actually be used if approved by the FDA, there are significant risks attendant to this phenomenon that have received too little attention.

The ultimate question is whether physicians can compartmentalize the competing incentives that exist in advising patients about whether to pursue conventional therapy or participate in a clinical trial. This is especially true if the physician is being handsomely compensated for each patient she recruits into a trial, and is exacerbated when the physician also has other financial relationships with the trial sponsor (the drug or device company) for, say, speaking and consulting gigs.  The recruitment process for clinical trials is the longest and most costly part of the process – prospective participants have to undergo testing to see if they qualify for the study, and federal law requires that they receive significant amounts of information and have ample opportunity to have their questions answered pre-enrollment. A per capita payment contingent upon successful enrollment of the patient will tempt a physician to fudge on this process and enroll unqualified subjects. This not only may put them at risk because they are too sick, but also skew the research results because they’re not sick enough. Bonuses for meeting enrollment goals only make it worse.

Without impugning physician integrity, how realistic it is for physicians to serve in the dual capacity of treating physician and researcher? Studies have repeatedly confirmed “therapeutic misconception” whereby study participants believe, no matter how clearly told to the contrary, that they are “patients” receiving treatment, rather than “subjects” of research who may be receiving a placebo or an experimental drug. This phenomenon is certainly exacerbated when the patient’s treating physician is doubling as the investigator of the clinical trial. Most patients continue to believe that their own personal physician would be driven solely by their best interests.  Ironically, research shows that some people have more faith in an experimental intervention when they learn that the investigator has a “piece of the action.”

Obviously, significant policy and legal questions arise from this practice, and a more holistic approach to the question of the best way to encourage clinical trials while safeguarding the interests of trial subjects is beyond what I can attempt here. But one possible approach could be drawn from informed consent law – whether statutory or common law, which should require physician disclosure of conflicts of interest to patients. Imagine the beginning of a conversation between doctor and patient/potential research subject:

Doctor: “Just so you know, if you agree to participate in this clinical trial, I get paid $1000 by the manufacturer of the product being tested, but if you don’t, and you just want regular treatment, I’ll only get paid $60 by your insurance company. But, in fairness, that’s because a clinical trial is a lot more work for me….”

But to be honest, I don’t really believe in this solution either. Most recipients of this information either don’t understand it, or have no idea what to do with it, or both. Some fear that too much confusion information might kill trials altogether, which would be a terrible outcome. And there are certainly reasons to fear that such trials are becoming harder to run, to the point where they are not worth the money.

Ultimately, I guess, I want to control how physicians get paid to serve as investigators – the Goldilocks Solution – not too much, and not too little. I want them to be paid just right, so that they are willing to conduct clinical trials, but aren’t tempted to act other than in the patient’s best interest. Of course, what is just right and how to enforce it poses its own problems.

Seton Hall Law School, the author’s employer, is the recipient of grants, donations and endowments from the pharmaceutical industry. No part of the author’s compensation is funded by these gifts.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. jeri harris says:

    i really hope someone out there is reading this… i could use some advice. my husband was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in jan. 08. we went to harvard doc, great rep, and he suggested a clinical trial, sarah cannon, gi 91 as an option. first, we had to have an mri, pet and cat scan to be sure that it hadn’t spread as the trial was for stage 3 only. the goal was to be able to have the “curative” surgery after chemo radiation. got test results back after much gut wrenching waiting, and we got the call. the doc’s nurse said that “dr. rubin was not calling the spots on the liver cancer, they only slightly lit up on the pet scan. we were a little concerned about the spots, but hey, they are the docs, we’ll take it. as my husband was only 47 years old, we were told that he would be a great candidate for the study as he was quite young for the cancer. we jumped right in, chemo radiation began, and of course, he got sicker and sicker. but, we were optimistic about the end results. we had our visit with the surgeon, well known surgeon at moffit hospital in tampa fl, his expertise was esophageal cancer, and he told us that he would have to have a pet scan for the liver “cysts” to make sure they weren’t cancer. so of course, we were scared to death, had the pet scan, and anxiously awaited the results. we went in for the pre surgery visit, i had to ASK how the test results came back, and he said oh ya, that’s right, he pulled up some scan that now looking back was probably a cat scan not a pet, and said oh, it’s fine. never explained anything. he had the horrific surgery, lived with horrific aftermath, in and out of hospitals for 4 months before the next check ups, and of course, the post surgery pet came back with metastized cancer in the liver, which would have disqualified him from the beginning, which we came to find out. the dr. we chose to see after getting the dismal news told us it was cancer from the beginning, stage 4, not 3. needless to say, he died of liver cancer 1 year after the surgery. i now have an attorney, but i really believe that he was put into the study for financial gain, along with the surgery. these docs should lose their licenses, as every doc that has seen the original scans said it was unequivocally cancer in the liver at the start, and surgery should never have been done. i feel like a victim of the clinical study laxness for not requiring that they see the tests done for all applicants of clinical studies, and certainly a victim of the docs who knew better, no other reason than money makes any sense. can anyone out there give me some advice, how to make some noise with this, i know we are not the only ones going thru this and this needs to stop. the doc works for florida cancer specialists, who now go by the name “florida cancer specialists and research organization. all that says to me is more people are going to be put thru the research mill for these docs and clinical research people to make lots of money as we now are trying to get over the nightmare of watching my husband struggle to survive after a surgery he should have NEVER had by all standard of care guidelines. HELP!!!! JERI HARRIS

  2. Larry says:

    I am not clear if the research doctor/clinical research staff reviewed all the inclusion/exclusion information. If he did, he did not understand the protocol, your husband could have been randomized by accident. If the sponsor gained knowledge that the patient were randomized by errow, than it would have been reported to the IRB office. It is diffucult to exspand on the subject matter, without a full review.