A Ray of Sunshine: Transparency in Physician-Industry Relationships Is Not Enough

Pharmaceutical company payments to NHS trusts

Overview of: Ozieranski P, Saghy E, Mulinari S. Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: a four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database. PLoS One 2023;18:e0290022.

The Rich Get Richer: The Matthew Effect in Open Payments

INTRODUCTION

The Matthew Effect refers to a pattern of accumulated advantage, specifically how social status can lead to increased wealth and recognition. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the Affordable Care Act requires industry payments and the affiliated hospital to be publicly available through the Open Payments Database (OPD). The US News and World Report (USNWR) publishes a ranking of best medical school (research) programs yearly. The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) ranks medical schools annually by the amount of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Whether medical school-affiliated hospitals with higher social ranking and more NIH funding receive more industrial support is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between open payment of medical school-affiliated hospitals and USNWR and BRIMR ranking.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the OPD for the fiscal year of 2021. Hospital industry payment information was collected for affiliated hospitals in general and research categories. NIH funding data and program rankings were collected from BRIMR and USNWR, respectively. All data were collected for the fiscal year of 2021. The open payments of schools ranked in the top 50 for USNWR (n = 50) and BRIMR (n = 49) were compared to the schools not ranked in the top 50 using SPSS with chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests. A multivariate linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between open payments, USNWR ranking, and BRIMR ranking.

RESULTS

A total of 91 medical schools were included in this study. The top 50 ranked medical schools by BRIMR were found to have a higher median of total open payment ($5,652,628 versus $2,558,372, P < 0.001), open payment in research ($4,707,297 versus $1,992,597, P = 0.003), and general open payment ($1,083,018 versus $392,045, P < 0.001). When ranked by USNWR, the top 50 ranked medical schools were found similarly to have a higher median of total open payment (P < 0.001), open payment in research (P < 0.001), and general open payment (P < 0.001). USNWR ranking was an independent predictor of more total open payment (Coefficient 0.016, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.029, P = 0.026) and research open payment (coefficient 0.018, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.034, P = 0.028). USNWR ranking was not found to predict general open payments. BRIMR ranking was not associated with open payment in total, research, or general.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital open payments were associated with the social reputation of their medical schools. NIH funding was not associated with open payments. A Matthew effect exists in current industry payments to medical school-affiliated hospitals.

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

BACKGROUND

Self-regulation of payment disclosure by pharmaceutical industry trade groups is a major global approach to increasing transparency of financial relationships between drug companies and healthcare professionals and organisations. Nevertheless, little is known about the relative strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation across countries, especially beyond Europe. To address this gap in research and stimulate international policy learning, we compare the UK and Japan, the likely strongest cases of self-regulation of payment disclosure in Europe and Asia, across three dimensions of transparency: disclosure rules, practices, and data.

RESULTS

The UK and Japanese self-regulation of payment disclosure had shared as well unique strengths and weaknesses. The UK and Japanese pharmaceutical industry trade groups declared transparency as the primary goal of payment disclosure, without, however, explaining the link between the two. The rules of payment disclosure in each country provided more insight into some payments but not others. Both trade groups did not reveal the recipients of certain payments by default, and the UK trade group also made the disclosure of some payments conditional on recipient consent. Drug company disclosure practices were more transparent in the UK, allowing for greater availability and accessibility of payment data and insight into underreporting or misreporting of payments by companies. Nevertheless, the share of payments made to named recipients was three times higher in Japan than in the UK, indicating higher transparency of disclosure data.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK and Japan performed differently across the three dimensions of transparency, suggesting that any comprehensive analysis of self-regulation of payment disclosure must triangulate analysis of disclosure rules, practices, and data. We found limited evidence to support key claims regarding the strengths of self-regulation, while often finding it inferior to public regulation of payment disclosure. We suggest how the self-regulation of payment disclosure in each country can be enhanced and, in the long run, replaced by public regulation to strengthen the industry's accountability to the public.

Quality of content reporting on two major oncology media websites: OncLive and Targeted Oncology

INTRODUCTION

Oncology media websites such as Oncology Live (OncLive) and Targeted Oncology (TargetedOnc) play an important role in the dissemination of oncology news to patients and clinicians; however, the quality of the content on these websites has not been assessed. Our study aimed to analyze content from these websites and assess financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) amongst speakers interviewed on these websites.

METHODS

Articles published on OncLive and TargetedOnc during October 2021, were prospectively captured and analyzed. The primary outcome of our study was the quality of oncology news reporting in OncLive and TargetedOnc. We assessed the FCOI amongst speakers using data from Open Payments.

RESULTS

We examined 196 articles (OncLive 108, TargetedOnc 88). Limitations of cited research were reported in 7% (7/105) of OncLive and zero TargetedOnc articles. Benefit and risks in absolute numbers were reported in 28% (28/99) of OncLive and 16% (7/45) of TargetedOnc articles. Independent experts were quoted in 47% (51/108) and 51% (44/86) of the OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively (Table 3). Pharmaceutical executives were quoted in 18% (20/108) and 11% (10/88) of OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively. No FCOI disclosures were listed or reported for any articles. The mean general payment received from industry by United States physicians was $63,861 in 2019 and $39,639 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates low quality and potentially biased reporting of oncology news on OncLive and TargetedOnc. Careful safeguards, oversight and reporting of relevant FCOI are needed to maintain the quality and transparency of content being provided.

Innovation in Neurosurgery: Lessons Learned, Obstacles, and Potential Funding Sources

Innovation is central to neurosurgery and has dramatically increased over the last twenty years. Although the specialty innovates as a whole, only 3-4.7% of practicing neurosurgeons hold patents. Various roadblocks to innovation impede this process such as lack of understanding, increasing regulatory complexity, and lack of funding. Newly emerging technologies allow us to understand how to innovate and how to learn from other medical specialties. By further understanding the process of innovation, and the funding that supports it, Neurosurgery can continue to hold innovation as one of its's central tenets.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

BACKGROUND

Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level.

METHODS

Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D.

CONCLUSION

The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

How are declarations of interest working? A cross-sectional study in declarations of interest in healthcare practice in Scotland and England in 2020/2021

OBJECTIVE

To understand arrangements for healthcare organisations' declarations of staff interest in Scotland and England in the context of current recommendations.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of a random selection of National Health Service (NHS) hospital registers of interest by two independent observers in England, all NHS Boards in Scotland and a random selection of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England.

SETTING

NHS Trusts in England (NHSE), NHS Boards in Scotland, CCGs in England, and private healthcare organisations.

PARTICIPANTS

Registers of declarations of interest published in a random sample of 67 of 217 NHS Trusts, a random sample of 15 CCGs of in England, registers held by all 14 NHS Scotland Boards and a purposeful selection of private hospitals/clinics in the UK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adherence to NHSE guidelines on declarations of interests, and comparison in Scotland.

RESULTS

76% of registers published by Trusts did not routinely include all declaration of interest categories recommended by NHS England. In NHS Scotland only 14% of Boards published staff registers of interest. Of these employee registers (most obtained under Freedom of Information), 27% contained substantial retractions. In England, 96% of CCGs published a Gifts and Hospitality register, with 67% of CCG staff declaration templates and 53% of governor registers containing full standard NHS England declaration categories. Single organisations often held multiple registers lacking enough information to interpret them. Only 35% of NHS Trust registers were organised to enable searching. None of the private sector organisations studied published a comparable declarations of interest register.

CONCLUSION

Despite efforts, the current system of declarations frequently lacks ability to meaningfully obtain complete healthcare professionals' declaration of interests.

Drivers of medicalization in the Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guidelines

The new Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guidelines frame higher body weight as a chronic, relapsing disease requiring comprehensive medical treatment pathways. In this commentary, we will demonstrate how a process called pharmaceuticalization is informing the new guidelines. We join those questioning the normalization of industry and medical collaboration and interrogate whether the new guidelines meaningfully address stigma.

European disclosure of drug company payments lags behind USA

Overview of: Ozieranski P, Martinon L, Jachiet PA, et al Accessibility and quality of drug company disclosures of payments to healthcare professionals and organisations in 37 countries: a European policy review. BMJ Open 2021;11:e053138.

Physicians' attitudes towards disclosure of payments from pharmaceutical companies in a nationwide voluntary transparency database: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To investigate German physicians' attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies in a public database and their impact on future decisions for or against disclosure.

DESIGN

A national cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018 among physicians who voluntarily disclosed at least one payment in the German transparency regulation.

SETTING

Retrospective paper-pencil questionnaire about attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary payment disclosures in the first (2015) and second (2016) years of the German transparency regulation.

PARTICIPANTS

German physicians who disclosed either in the first year only, the second year only, or in both years of the transparency regulation.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

(1) The probability to disclose in 2016, predicted by physicians' experience of reactions from others in 2015, descriptive norms and attitudes towards transparency; (2) Frequency and (3) Content of reactions from others in 2015 compared with 2016.

RESULTS

Data of 234 respondents were analysed (n=42, 45 and 147 physicians who disclosed in 2015, 2016 or both years, respectively). The probability to disclose in 2016 was not predicted by perceived reactions, norms or attitudes towards transparency (p>0.01). Most participants reported not to have received any reactions by patients (190/234, 81%), colleagues (128/234, 55%) or the private environment (153/234, 65%). Neither frequency nor content of reactions differed between the first and second years (scale 1-5; frequency: Mdn_2015,2016 = 1.33 vs 1.00, r_b=-0.17, p>0.01; content: Mdn_2015,2016 = 3.00 vs 3.00, r_b=0.19, p>0.01). However, media reporting, fear of reputational damage and a feeling of being defamed were mentioned as reasons for non-disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

While confirmatory analyses did not provide significant results, descriptive analyses showed that participants who voluntarily disclose payments mainly do not experience any reactions towards their disclosures but report fears about losing their reputation due to disclosures.

Health Services and Policy Research in Canada: An Editor's Reflections

Starting in 2017, retroactive to 2016, Innovative Medicines Canada (IMC) - the lobby group representing most of the large research-based pharmaceutical companies operating in Canada - initiated a voluntary system for companies to annually report on payments that they make to healthcare providers and organizations. Over the five years that the system has been in operation, 10 companies reported spending almost $345 million. The largest payments were to healthcare providers. Four companies spent more than $10 million in one or more years. The names of people and organizations receiving the payments and their purpose are not disclosed. Even if IMC makes disclosures mandatory for all its members, those reforms will not be enough to ensure transparency of company payments.

COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force and Conflicts of Interest

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government established a COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force to provide it with recommendations on a wide variety of issues related to vaccines. This article explores how the conflicts of interest of the Task Force members are declared and managed and what the implications are for the advice that they offer to the government. The Canadian government needs to go beyond just managing conflicts and work toward eliminating them on the Task Force.

Accessibility and quality of drug company disclosures of payments to healthcare professionals and organisations in 37 countries: a European policy review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the accessibility and quality of drug company payment data in Europe.

DESIGN

Comparative policy review of payment data in countries with different regulatory approaches to disclosure.

SETTING

37 European countries.

PARTICIPANTS

European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, its trade group and their drug company members; eurosfordocs.eu, an independent database integrating payments disclosed by companies and trade groups; regulatory bodies overseeing payment disclosure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Regulatory approaches to disclosure (self-regulation, public regulation, combination of the two); data accessibility (format, structure, searchability, customisable summary statistics, downloadability) and quality (spectrum of disclosed characteristics, payment aggregation, inclusion of taxes, recipient or donor identifiers).

RESULTS

Of 30 countries with self-regulation, five had centralised databases, with Disclosure UK displaying the highest accessibility and quality. In 23 of the remaining countries with self-regulation and available data, disclosures were published in the portable document format (PDF) on individual company websites, preventing the public from understanding payment patterns. Eurosfordocs.eu had greater accessibility than any industry-run database, but the match between the value of payments integrated in eurosfordocs.eu and summarised separately by industry in seven countries ranged between 56% and 100% depending on country. Eurosfordocs.eu shared quality shortcomings with the underlying industry data, including ambiguities in identifying payments and their recipients. Public regulation was found in 15 countries, used either alone (3), in combination (4) or in parallel with (8) self-regulation. Of these countries, 13 established centralised databases with widely ranging accessibility and quality, and sharing some shortcomings with the industry-run databases. The French database, Transparence Santé, had the highest accessibility and quality, exceeding that of Disclosure UK.

CONCLUSIONS

The accessibility and quality of payment data disclosed in European countries are typically low, hindering investigation of financial conflicts of interest. Some improvements are straightforward but reaching the standards characterising the widely researched US Open Payments database requires major regulatory change.

Drug company payments to General Practices in England: Cross-sectional and social network analysis

Although there has been extensive research on pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations with key roles in health systems have received little attention. We seek to contribute to addressing this gap in research by examining drug company payments to General Practices in England in 2015. We combine a publicly available payments database managed by the pharmaceutical industry with datasets covering key practice characteristics. We find that practices were an important target of company payments, receiving £2,726,018, equivalent to 6.5% of the value of payments to all healthcare organisations in England. Payments to practices were highly concentrated and specific companies were also highly dominant. The top 10 donors and the top 10 recipients amassed 87.9% and 13.6% of the value of payments, respectively. Practices with more patients, a greater proportion of elderly patients, and those in more affluent areas received significantly more payments on average. However, the patterns of payments were similar across England's regions. We also found that company networks-established by making payments to the same practices-were largely dominated by a single company, which was also by far the biggest donor. Greater policy attention is required to the risk of financial dependency and conflicts of interests that might arise from payments to practices and to organisational conflicts of interests more broadly. Our research also demonstrates that the comprehensiveness and quality of payment data disclosed via industry self-regulatory arrangements needs improvement. More interconnectivity between payment data and other datasets is needed to capture company marketing strategies systematically.

Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives in the United States and China: The Need for Professional Public Space

Pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) are one of the most frequently used drug information sources for physicians in both the United States and China. During face-to-face interactions, PSRs use various promotional strategies to impact the prescribing behavior. In the United States, PSRs provide physicians small gifts, free drug samples, and “sincere friendships”, whereas in China, they played an indispensable role in medical corruption over the past three decades. To cope with the undue influence of PSRs, both these countries have taken positive but insufficient measures to eliminate the effect thus far. By comparing the strategies of American and Chinese PSRs, it was found that building a friendly personal relationship with physicians in a relatively closed private environment (such as physician’s office) is a key factor to exert an individualized influence on physicians, even in different social backgrounds and healthcare contexts. Therefore, this essay suggests that it is necessary to limit the establishment of personal relationships and maintain a more professional interaction to reduce the personalized psychological and emotional influences on physicians’ professional judgment. To achieve this goal, it is proposed to transfer the physician-PSR interaction to a professional public space as a supplement to current countermeasures and suggestions. The presence of others and the possibility of third party participation will stimulate more ethical and reputational concerns. It is hoped that the increased transparency of the interaction will promote participants to consider more professional norms and mitigate the undue influence of PSRs’ individualized strategies.