My clients seem to fall into two camps. How do I follow the model or how can I create a model beyond TELMS that addresses many of the key points? I am not going to debate the model but I will weigh in on the vagueness of "how" these mechanisms can be implemented beyond the narrow scope of the article. Let me cast a wide net and share a bit of what I find problematic regarding claims to "Improve awareness, convert information, demonstrate engagement, and substantiate partnerships". I don't have the answer--I would at least like to create an important dialogue.
The data is compelling, confusing, and potentially influenced by industry and financial interests on a global scale. I am going to use T2D as an example. Lately I have been working with Oncology data but there is a whole other level of complexity there.
Data on food nutrition, food policy, consensus data, and clinical patient databases are informative when discussing chronic diseases--specifically Type II Diabetes. The short audio below sets the tone from the preventative perspective. You don't need me to tell you healthcare costs are unsustainable. There are limits to out-innovating our biology. We need stronger and more robust policies upstream from disease.
The Expanded Learning Model for Systems (TELMS), offers a framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating learning solutions that move both HCPs and patients through a series of learning stages to enable them to adopt evidence-based behaviors informed by quality and performance indicators, and which will help CE stakeholders to demonstrate how such changes lead to improvements in care coordination and quality of care.
Although the FDA has traditionally focused on the safety and efficacy of drugs relative to placebo, there are abundant good reasons for the agency to push industry and other study sponsors to use active controls in type 2 diabetes studies. The major clinical role of the new drugs is as alternative treatments, not as therapies for patients who otherwise would not be treated with drugs.
Shouldn't the drug pipeline show investments in innovation? How about record amounts of shareholder dividends or stock buy backs? When you neglect to look at data and understand the "patient/return on investment" of shareholder argument you become a PR machine--not an informed voice or part of the broader discussion of change in healthcare.
What if I told you that many companies create revenue by cycling profits back to shareholders instead of capital investments like R&D? Obviously pharmaceutical companies are heterogeneous and have different practices and incentives but the demand for greater transparency is a bit ill-informed and ignorant. They are already transparent--If you know where to look.
I highlight Novo-Nordisk only because Victoza tops the list in physician renumeration. It also tops a few other lists if you investigate quarterly trends in FDA Adverse Event Database (FAERS) data reported by Druginformer.
Here is a brief snapshot of industry influence from a Virtual Expert Roundtable where a panel of experts will "discuss strategies to set appropriate HbA1c targets, how to select guideline-based therapies, and how to engage and motivate patients to be fully invested in their treatment program to reach their HbA1c goals."
Here are the industry payments to expert #1:
Industry payments to expert #2:
Industry payment to expert #3: