The physician payments sunshine act: what the average radiologist and manager need to know

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) was enacted in 2010 and requires applicable manufacturers of medical devices, drugs, biological material, or medical supplies to report payments or transfers of value that are provided to physicians or teaching hospitals. PPSA has value in creating greater transparency in the financial relationships between industry, physicians, and teaching hospitals, and in potentially reducing problematic conflicts of interest. PPSA requires that this data be published, in searchable form, on a public website. CMS has delayed the reporting under PPSA until after January 1, 2013, and has yet to issue its final rules for PPSA; however, Physician Payments data already exist in a publically searchable database. It is important to realize that names of individuals may appear in the PPSA public database, even if those individuals did not actually receive a transfer of value. As with all broad-stroke legislation, consequences not anticipated or not considered sufficiently important for our government leaders may well present a problem for individuals. It behooves all physicians and healthcare managers to carefully follow the CMS PPSA regulations. In advance of meeting or interacting with any PPSA-applicable manufacturer, obtain a clear and mutual understanding regarding what reportable value, if any, will be prepared for and provided by the applicable manufacturer. In this, as in all situations in which government regulations are at play, "knowledge is strength."

[Conflict of interest and bioethics]

"Conflicts of interests" is a multi-meaning expression. To give a juridical concept is not easy because this concept is applied in public and private law. Maybe this is the reason of not having a law giving a valid definition in any case In health area, a conflict of interests is present many times, i.e. at the beginning of a research, when informing its results, etc. This conflict of interests may affect different aspects of the research work, economic or not; sometimes totally or partially. The economic resources is one of the most common reasons of the conflict of interests. The mass media often cause conflicts of interests informing the general public about new scientific discovery in a simple way to be understood but without been quite assertive. Other times, great enterprises hide information about new and better medicines due to the fact that they have many old medicines that should be sold before introducing in the market the new ones. From the academic point of view, conflicts may arise when the public funds are wrongly used to support unworthy researches.

[The notion of conflict of interest in the field of health and environment: philosophical and legal approaches]

This paper considers the conflict of interest in philosophical and legal perspective. The philosophical approach comes from two perspectives: political philosophy focuses on the role of the link of interest in the city considered in the light of a broader reflection on the conditions of living together. Antiquity philosophers have enhanced the interest link as privileged vector of humanization and socialization of individuals. In the eighteenth century, Adam Smith considers the pursuit of individual interests a stronger social base that love of neighbor advocated by Christians. Moral philosophy focuses specifically on the passage of interest linked to the conflict of interest. It wondered if we should be impartial in all circumstances or whether it's right to give priority to our friends and loved ones. Thus, it poses the question of whether introspection is sufficient to detect conflicts of interest or if the look of an external third party is still required. The legal process differs from the philosophical approach at two levels; on the one hand, its scope is more limited: the law doesn't envisage the benefits of links of interest on social life even though it may protect some of them (in the context of the family, for example) and is intended to prevent bias that may taint the decision public. On the other hand, the lawyer doesn't enter the interiority of individuals but stands by what appears on the outside: it tracks the suspicion of bias can have serious impacts, such as health and the environment. Somehow, it is more radical. It's noteworthy that despite its many developments, the law can't to stop conflicts of interest in research. Several reasons account for this impasse: scientists receive mission to partner with industry to develop products but they must remain independent in order to assess the risks; there is a tendency to always choose the same experts; there are conflicts of interest intellectuals which are not easy to detect.

The changing landscape of conflict of interest supports further study of ASCO authorship restrictions for research studies

The American Society of Clinical Oncology's conflict of interest policy reaffirms a commitment to transparency and independence in the development and presentation of scientific and educational content as well as the responsibility to analyze, present, and discuss the most important research results with the potential to improve the lives of patients.

Legal briefing: informed consent in the clinical context

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving informed consent.1 We covered this topic in previous articles in The Journal of Clinical Ethics.2 But an updated discussion is warranted. First, informed consent remains a central and critically important issue in clinical ethics. Second, there have been numerous significant legal changes over the past year. We categorize recent legal developments into the following 13 categories: (1) Medical Malpractice Liability, (2) Medical Malpractice Liability in Wisconsin, (3) Medical Malpractice Liability in Novel Situations, (4) Enforcement by Criminal Prosecutors, (5) Enforcement by State Medical Boards, (6) Enforcement through Anti-Discrimination Laws, (7) Statutorily Mandated Disclosures Related to End-of-Life Counseling, (8) Statutorily Mandated Disclosures Related to Aid in Dying, (9) Statutorily Mandated Disclosures Related to Abortion, (10) Statutorily Mandated Disclosures Related to Telemedicine, (11) Statutorily Mandated Disclosures Related to Other Interventions, (12) Statutorily Mandated Gag and Censorship Laws, (13) Informed Consent in the Research Context.

A systematic review of state and manufacturer physician payment disclosure websites: implications for implementation of the Sunshine Act

Under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (PPSA), payments to physicians from pharmaceutical, biologics, and medical device manufacturers will be disclosed on a national, publicly available website. To inform the development of the federal website, we evaluated 21 existing state and industry disclosure websites. The presentation formats and language used suggest that industry websites are aimed at patient audiences whereas state websites are structured to transmit data to researchers and guide compliance officers. These findings raise questions about the intended audience and aims of the PPSA disclosure database and expected outcomes of the law. Based on our evaluation, we offer recommendations for the national website and discuss implications of this policy for the health care system.