There is nothing new in the restrictions, or the reasons for them.  40 years ago it was pharmaceutical companies (still is), now it is device manufactuerers.  It is also no different from corporate buyers who accept freebies from suppliers, who send the 'gift' to their homes.  Or federal employees who recommend air tankers in exchange for a lucrative position afterwards.

Federal employees are forbidden from accepting meals (or even coffee) on a one-to-one basis from suppliers.  I have seen a laboratory director  refuse to let a marketing rep add a bag of chips to the rep's lunch tab.  Integrity (and the lack thereof) is evenly spread across society.  When internal controls work, outside imposition of restrictions will not be needed.

I was Chief Medical Officer for a 500 bed comminity teaching hospital from 1978-1998. In addition, I served as director of medical education for a family practice residency and accredited hospital CME. I also served as CME program director for the County medical Society. From the beginning we created a memo of understanding about indusrty relations, and reqired compliance by the many pharmaceutical and device makers.

It turned out to be be mutually beneficial with superb national and regional speakers expanding the CME offerings of a community without medical school or academic medical center talents. A policy was developed and agreed on by all parties. There are models that seem to preserve the educational benefits of these associations without permitting undue influence.

Perhaps not a perfect solution but avoiding what appears to be an overreaction with the aforementioned unintented consequences of loss of educational opportunities and collaborative efforts from our profession and industry which all stive in the calling to patient care.

Seth- I respectfully disagree. First, to bemoan the loss of educational opportunities when industry-physician relationships are limited is wrong.  Vendors roles are to market not to educate.  The conflict is that they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders not to you, your patients or public health.  Every study has that has looked at the influence of industry on MD practice patterns shows the same thing- when physicians receive perks from industry, even trivial things like free lunches, their prescribing and usage patterns change and this is usually manifested by chosing more expensive, rather than generic or cheaper options.  Trainees such as residents and fellows are specifically targeted since they form patterns early in their careers, much like McDonalds gives toys with the Happy Meal.  Industry spends billions of dollars trying to influence physician behavior.  If you speak with former reps they will tell you how much time they spend in seminars training them how to ingratiate themselves with doctors and influence them.  Unfortunately as a profession we have not policed ourselves.  All of us saw our colleagues, wined and dined, taken on golf junkets, etc.  Did we really believe this was to educate us or to seduce us? 

 Finally, no one has said we can't interact with industry and hear about their products.  But, do we really have to be fed, or compensated to be educated?

I do think that industry has it's own agenda...and it isn't our education.  It is to sell devices or drugs or catheters.  Even the most balanced and fair presentation  sponsored by a company will have some positive influence on our usage.  That's why these companies do it!

I am even more concerned about how researchers in a particular field become incredibly entrained with the device manufacturers.  The are on the speakers' bureau...they get the early devices for testing...they get to present the "latest and greatest" at the national meetings...and then they get to go in front of the FDA's panels and recommend that the devices be approved --- or even worse...they are on the FDA panel and they are getting to approve devices that they were "paid" to study.