Medical antitrust actions–Does “might make right”?

Byldoadmin

But there is a price for this exception from the democratic process of making laws.  Due process and fundamental fairness is required by panels that may displace participatory democracy.  In short, professional territory disputes can’t be the first and only item on the agenda.  Bully pulpits aren’t allowed. Excluding competitors to take action that harms them is also not permitted.

The Connecticut Attorney General action against the IDSA is not the first antitrust case against a medical society.  While we often don’t think of medical professional as being competitors, they are.  New theories and methods of treating threaten the territorial turf of those in the main stream who seek to “take arms against a sea of enemies and by opposing end them”.  For example, chiropractors brought an action against the American Medical Association when the AMA prohibited its members from making referrals to chiropractors on the grounds that chiropractics was not based on the scientific method. (Wilk v. AMA, 885 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)).  Similarly, the American Academy of Ophthalmology was caught in the cross hairs of antitrust law when it sought to shut out the competition posed by laser surgery.  (Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 870 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1989)).

Antitrust issues arise when expert panels that have monopoly power fail to provide due process, stack the ballot, or exclude divergent viewpoints from the table.  The Connecticut Attorney General found that the panel that worked on the IDSA 2006 Lyme disease treatment guidelines had substantial conflicts of interests, excluded participation from its panel, and suppressed scientific evidence.  And, they did this to the detriment of their competitors (physicians who treat longer) and patients.

A key risk for guidelines development groups is that the composition of the guidelines panel often predetermines its conclusions.   An article by Sniderman in the Journal of the American Medical Association frames the issue well:

Because gaps in the evidence are inevitable, they must be filled in with judgments, and judgments tend to preserve previous positions. Thus, what is to be decided is often already decided with the selection of the deciders.

When guidelines panels engage in “dirty tricks” and use exclusionary tactics to achieve a predetermined outcome and restrict treatment options, they run afoul of antitrust law because they are violating the due process requirements that apply to guideline setting groups.   This risk is highest among specialty societies, which may dictate how internist must treat, but exclude them from sitting on their panels. 

The IDSA found itself under scrutiny for antitrust violations because

  1. It had monopoly power over the treatment of Lyme disease
  2. It’s chair was allowed to hand-pick a panel of “like-minded” researchers and excluded divergent points of view from representation on the panel, including IDSA physicians who disagreed with the viewpoint of the panel and physicians who advocated different treatment approaches like the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS)
  3. It foreclosed treatment options and barred the use of a physician’s clinical judgment in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease
  4. It’s guidelines were regarded as mandatory within the medical community and used in unprofessional conduct actions by state medical boards to take away the medical licenses of physicians who did not comply with its guidelines
  5. The IDSA had the power to enforce its guidelines by providing insurers with second opinions while instigating and testifying at unprofessional conduct actions against physicians who did not comply with the IDSA guidelines.  
  6. The IDSA had the  ability to further suppress the debate through its role as the gatekeeper (on editorial boards and as peer reviewers) for medical journals, medical conferences, and grand rounds
  7. The IDSA guidelines actually limited the patient’s ability to obtain care because few physicians were willing to risk losing their license to provide the care and because insurers denied payment for treatments that did not conform to the IDSA viewpoint 

The IDSA could have avoided antitrust scrutiny if it had opened its panel to include divergent viewpoints.  Divergent viewpoints are the basis for treatment options.  Think of the surgeon, the radiologist, and the endocrinologist differing viewpoints on treating prostate cancer.  What if the surgeon had monopoly power and excluded radiologists, endocrinologist, and internists from providing treatment options of radiation therapy, hormone therapy or watchful waiting?  While this might increase the jurisdictional and professional turf of surgeons, it would harm their competitors and prostate patients because it would take away treatment options and the exercise of clinical judgment.  Yet this is what the IDSA has done with its restrictive guidelines and exclusionary conduct.   It has taken away the treatment options for patients—and many patients fail to improve under the IDSA guidelines—and left them with a handful of ashes.  It has also driven out competitors, physicians who provide treatment alternatives to these patients.

The fact that most of the IDSA recommendations (38 of 71) are based on no more than the “expert opinion” of a stacked panel underscores how important it is to have diversity on guidelines panels and to recognize treatment options and the role of physician judgment in providing individualized patient care.   It is a misuse of evidence-based medicine to cloak the “opinion” of the panel as “science”.  And, it is wrong for a subspecialty, like the IDSA, to place protection of its professional territory above the concerns and welfare of patients by refusing to have a diverse panel or provide treatment options.

Similar Posts

  • Attorney General Press Release: IDSA Lyme Disease Guidelines Flawed and Driven by Conflicts of Interests

    On May 1, 2008, the Connecticut Attorney General announced a landmark settlement against the Infectious Diseases Society of America in connection with its guidelines for treating Lyme disease. The IDSA guidelines are relied upon by insurers throughout the nation to deny seriously ill patients treatment for chronic Lyme disease. The Attorney General found substantial conflicts of interest among the panel members on the IDSA guidelines who held commercial interests related to diagnostic tests, vaccines, and insurance. In addition, the Attorney General found that the panel suppressed scientific evidence and excluded opposing views from the panel.

  • Volkman submission to IDSA–Smells like courage to me

    David Volkman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at SUNY, Stony Brook, and previously Senior Investigator with the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, has submitted the attached letter to the IDSA pursuant to its document submission process. He has performed both clinical and bench research in Lyme disease since 1985. Given his impeccable credentials, outlined in the first paragraph of his letter, his submission should carry considerable weight with the panel. Among other things, he points to the suppression of research and stifling of the types of investigative inquiry necessary to begin to address pressing issues for Lyme patients—the need for better testing, the need to acknowledge persistence and start looking for treatment protocols that help patients get better, the need to keep surveillance definitions outside the arena of patient diagnosis, the need to acknowledge the usefulness of PCR testing, and the need to avoid prophylaxis regimens that may promote chronic Lyme. His letter smells a little bit like “courage” to me—a pretty rare commodity these days.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Pam Weintraub’s CNN Article–Setting Things Straight

    CNN published an editorial by Pam Weintraub that helps set the record straight in Lyme disease. I comment about how the Lyme research agenda has been hi-jacked by an insular group of researchers and why we need to include patients and their physicians as stakeholders in Lyme disease. It’s time for research and treatment guidelines that are accountable and that improve patient care.

  • Bias and patient autonomy—what’s the connection

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So why do we care about bias in medical guidelines? Because opinion should not dictate patient care. Think of the prostate cancer patient who sees the surgeon who recommends surgery, the radiologist who recommends radiation treatment, and the internist who recommends watchful waiting. Everyone knows that one’s position depends on where one sits. The surgeon may genuinely prefer surgery and when he recommends it to his patient, the patient realizes that he is, after all, talking with a surgeon and that surgeons are likely to favor surgery. He also knows that he can walk down the street a bit and talk with the radiologist and get his perspective. The point is that even though the patient is given conflicting advice, at the end of the day the decision is his. He chooses among treatment options and the physicians respect his decision. This is called autonomy—a recognition that patients are entitled to make choices among health care options.

  • Weinstein Off the IDSA Guidelines Review Panel!

    Arthur Weinstein's role on the IDSA's Lyme guidelines review panel was short lived. Today's list of panel members posted on the IDSA website excludes him. Patient groups were alarmed when he was included in the IDSA's panel list posted by the IDSA on Monday. Weinstein was at NYMC with Dr. Gary Wormser, who was the chair of the 2006 IDSA guidelines panel, which the Connecticut Attorney General investigated and found had been riddled with conflicts of interest , excluded divergent points of view and suppressed scientific evidence. Weinstein was a co-author on the Klempner study, on the safety monitoring board for the vaccines, and involved in the flawed western blot testing (Dearborn Conference). His removal from the panel is a step in the right direction for Lyme patients.