 |
|
Pharmaceutical Industry Funding for Residencies Sparks Controversy
Bridget M. Kuehn
JAMA. 2005;293:1572-1580.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
A controversial American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) pilot program that aims to boost the number of dermatology residencies using funding from pharmaceutical companies and other sources has left some physicians questioning the need for more dermatologists and the wisdom of allowing pharmaceutical support for graduate medical education.
On November 12, 2004, the AAD announced the initiative, which will pool money donated by the academy, pharmaceutical companies, and other interested parties to fund 10 new dermatology residency slots for the July 2006 match. In late January, the AAD board decided to expand the initiative to seek other possible solutions to a perceived shortage such as the use of nurse practitioners and other such staff or training for primary care physicians.
| |
Although proponents of a new program that uses pharmaceutical company funding to increase the number of dermatology residencies say it is a "no strings" initiative, critics charge it . . . [Full Text of this Article] |
|
POOLING FUNDS
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Opprobrium or opportunity?
Glick
Journal of the American Dental Association 2006;137:1484-1486.
FULL TEXT
Academic medical centers and conflicts of interest.
Goldblum and Franzblau
JAMA 2006;295:2845-2846.
FULL TEXT
President's Page: American College of Cardiology Fellowship: Where Ideals and Personal Responsibility Intersect
Nissen and President, American College of Cardiology
J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1901-1903.
FULL TEXT
|
