One of our trusted sources was kind enough to give us an advance copy of Dr. David E. Paquette’s Guest Editorial from the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (see below). We are indebted to Dr. Paquette for giving us a demonstration in conflict of interest… and the inspiration for yesterday’s post.

Interesting thing about guest editorials – they have strict rules about what is appropriate and are supposedly vetted! For example, The New England Journal of Medicine “expects that authors of such articles [Guest Editorials] have no significant financial interests in any biomedical company relevant to topics and products discussed in the subject they are reviewing or the article on which they are commenting. When prospective authors do have financial ties to disclose, Journal editors decide whether they are relevant to the subject and whether they are de minimis.” Shame on the AJODO for publishing an unvetted and wholly disingenuous editorial.

How do we know the article was unvetted and disingenuous? Easy! According to the Centers for Medicaid Services Open Payments reporting system, which requires reporting from publicly traded healthcare companies, Dr. Paquette received a 2017 total of $356,449.87 in compensation from Ortho Organizers, Inc., Align Technology, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. and Henry Schein, Inc. These payments were broken down into the categories of consulting services ($257,587.44), honoraria ($54,700), travel and lodging ($34,978.08), food and beverage ($9122.38) and gifts ($61.98).  Dr. Paquette tells us, among other things in his guest editorial, “it would be unusual for someone in private practice to make enough money lecturing to offset the overhead expense of lost time in the office; and counter to common belief, federal laws discourage companies from providing free products in exchange for services.” His overhead in practice must be extraordinarily high and he must have spent quite a bit of time out of the office.

  1. Centers for Medicaid Services. https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/585503/payment-information (Accessed September 27, 2018)

PaquetteEditorial

Again we do not take issue with an orthodontist being paid for their time but we cannot abide this blatant attempt to appear impartial and above the fray when nothing could be further from the truth.

Marc Ackerman

Ben Burris

3 thoughts on “PostScript: Follow the Money

  1. You mean to tell me, that when Paquette reported in an article in Orthotown that the Henry Schein bracket allowed him to treat patients in 12.5 months on average, whereas a competing self-ligating bracket took him 23.9 months…he just might be lying because he’s partial to Henry Schein which paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars last year? Makes sense.

    “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” would be my guest editorial.

    1. We did not see that interview in Orthotown. If your reporting is indeed correct, you have a plausible hypothesis.

      1. https://www.orthotown.com/magazine/articles/6912/a-method-for-evaluating-efficiency

        Paquette in AJO editorial: “Although there are charlatans and snake-oil salesmen in every walk of life, the key opinion leaders I know take their roles seriously, understand the weight of influence their presentations may carry, firmly believe in what they are presenting, and would not knowingly present deceptive or misleading information.”

        Paquette in Orthotown peddling Henry Schein brackets in Orthotown: “patients treated with the SLX system completed treatment in roughly half the time of the patients treated with the OSL system.”

        How many times has the orthodontic community heard from charlatans claiming faster treatment time? Typically, charlatans claim something like “33% faster” or “finish 3 months faster.” But cut treatment time in HALF?? That’s a pretty brazen charlatan!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *