Trends in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Radiation Oncologists Versus Other Physicians in the United States from 2014 to 2018

Industry-sponsored meal payments are associated with prescriptions and Medicare expenditures on brand-name colchicine in the United States

AIM

To investigate the association between industry-sponsored meal payments and the prescribing patterns of brand-name colchicines, namely Colcrys and Mitigare, among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2014 to 2021.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized data from the Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D covering the years 2014 to 2021. The study included 54 836 physicians who submitted more than 10 colchicine claims. Exposure was defined as the receipt of one or more industry-sponsored meals from the manufacturers of Colcrys or Mitigare. The primary outcomes included the likelihood of prescribing Colcrys and Mitigare, as well as the associated number of claims and Medicare expenditures.

RESULTS

Among 54 836 eligible physicians, 44.9% received meal payments from the Colcrys manufacturer, and 8.0% from the Mitigare manufacturer, over the eight-year study period. The average meal payment value was $14.9 for Colcrys and $15.1 for Mitigare. The receipt of meal payments was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of prescribing Colcrys (odds ratio: 1.24 [95% CI: 1.21-1.27], p < .001) and Mitigare (odds ratio: 3.54 [95% CI: 2.98-4.20], p < .001). Each additional meal payment corresponded with a significant increase in Medicare expenditures: $55.4 (95% CI: $48.3-$62.5, p < .001) for Colcrys and $153.7 (95% CI: $17.7-$289.6, p = .03) for Mitigare. These associations remained consistent across different specialties and genders.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals that receipt of meal payments from manufacturers of brand-name colchicine was significantly associated with an increased rate of prescriptions for these brand-name drugs, leading to higher Medicare expenditures in the United States.

Pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified dermatologists: a 4-year retrospective analysis of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019

There are prevalent financial relationships between dermatologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. However, little was known about the extent of whole picture of the personal payments made to dermatologists by pharmaceutical companies. This study aimed to examine the personal payments to the board-certified dermatologists by the Japanese Dermatological Association from the pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Using the publicly disclosed payments data by the pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019, we evaluated the magnitude, prevalence, and trends in the personal payments made to all board-certified dermatologists for the lecturing, writing, and consulting compensations. The payments were descriptively analyzed overall and by dermatologist demographics. Additionally, the payment trends were assessed by generalized estimating equation models. Of 6883 active board-certified dermatologists, 3121 (45.3%) received a total of $33,223,806 personal payments between 2016 and 2019. The median per-physician payments and number of payments (interquartile range) were $1737 ($613-$5287) and 4.0 (2.0-10.0) over the 4 years, respectively. Only top 1%, 5%, 10% of dermatologists received 41.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.2-45.1%), 76.9% (95% CI 74.7-79.1%), and 87.6% (95% CI 86.2-88.9%) of overall payments. The number of dermatologists receiving payments and per-dermatologist payments increased by 4.3% (95% CI 3.1‒5.5%, p < 0.001) and 16.4% (95% CI 13.5‒19.4%, p < 0.001) each year. The board-certification in dermatology-oncology, in cosmetic dermatology, and male sex were significantly associated with higher personal payments with relative monetary values of 2.29 (95% CI 1.65-3.19, p < 0.001), 3.16 (95% CI 1.89-5.26, p < 0.001), and 5.38 (95% CI 4.12-7.04, p < 0.001). Less than half of Japanese board-certified dermatologists received lower personal payments from the pharmaceutical companies than those to other specialists. However, these personal payments were increasingly more prevalent and greater over the 4 years.

Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies have historically caused conflicts of interest and unduly influenced patient care. However, little was known about such relationship and its effect in clinical practice among specialists in respiratory medicine.

METHODS

Based on the retrospective analysis of payment data made available by all 92 pharmaceutical companies in Japan, this study evaluated the magnitude and trend of financial relationships between all board-certified Japanese respiratory specialists and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Magnitude and prevalence of payments for specialists were analyzed descriptively. The payment trends were assessed using the generalized estimating equations for the payment per specialist and the number of specialists with payments.

RESULTS

Among all 7,114 respiratory specialists certified as of August 2021, 4,413 (62.0%) received a total of USD 53,547,391 and 74,195 counts from 72 (78.3%) pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median (interquartile range) 4-year combined payment values per specialist were USD 2,210 (USD 715-8,178). At maximum, one specialist received USD 495,332 personal payments over the 4 years. Both payments per specialist and number of specialists with payments significantly increased during the 4-year period, with 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5-9.8; p < 0.001) in payments and 1.5% (95% CI: 0.61-2.4; p = 0.001) in number of specialists with payments, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of respiratory specialists had increasingly received more personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing between 2016 and 2019. These increasing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies might cause conflicts of interest among respiratory physicians.