The Court of Auditors, in a report that Marianne has consulted, bluntly attacks the systems recently put in place aimed at more transparency within five public health organizations.
It is a pavement in the puddle in which the health experts are happily dabbling, professors of medicine in the head, that the Court of Auditors has just thrown. In a report commissioned by the Senate and which was submitted to it this Wednesday, March 23, entitled "the prevention of conflicts of interest in matters of health expertise", the magistrates of the rue Cambon systematically dezute the recently established systems aiming at greater transparency within five public health organizations. The issue of conflict of interest in the health field, which is so sensitive to the public, even more so since the Médiator affair, has led to the implementation of transparency policies.
The law of December 29, 2011, better known under the name of "Bertrand law", named after the Minister of Health at the time, was full of ambition and had the merit of wanting to clean up a world plagued by conflict. interests of certain health experts appointed by pharmaceutical laboratories. This is based on three pillars, as recalled by the Court of Auditors: generalization of obligations to declare interests and their publication; transparency in the decision-making of expert committees, notably by recording their debates and publishing the reports; and finally, transparency of the advantages granted by companies to health professionals, by their detailed publication on a single site.
Las! More than four years later, according to the Court, not one of these three points is satisfactory.The statements? 20% display anomalies. No ethical commission monitors their veracity. The 
transparency of debates? Incomplete. Advantages ? It's even more funny. A hole in the legislation, and the reading in fact the organizations allows the experts to declare only small gifts, restaurant invitations or transportation fees, graciously offered by the labs. Paid agreements, which can reach very high sums, are not subject to this reporting obligation.
Logical result : while the High Authority in charge of the transparency of public life has sent a number of parliamentary files to justice, so far no expert has been pinched, no investigation has been opened ... except blatant case or revelations by the press ...
Source : Marianne.net
