Payments to Physicians: Does the Amount of Money Make a Difference?

Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database

INTRODUCTION

Although hospitals are key health service providers, their financial ties to drug companies are little understood. We examine non-research pharmaceutical industry payments to English National Health Service (NHS) trusts-hospital groupings providing secondary and tertiary care.

METHODS

We extracted data from the industry-run Disclosure UK database, analysing it descriptively and using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test to establish whether a statistically significant time trend existed in the median values of individual payments. We explained payment value and number per trust with random effects models, using selected trust characteristics as predictors.

RESULTS

Drug companies reported paying £60,253,421 to 234 trusts, representing between 90.0% and 92.0% of all trusts in England between 2015 and 2018. As a share of payments to all healthcare organisations, the number of payments rose from 38.6% to 39.5%, but their value dropped from 33.0% to 23.6%. The number of payments for fees for service and consultancy and contributions to costs of events increased by 61.5% and 29.4%. The median payment value decreased significantly for trusts overall (from £2,250.8 to £1,758.5), including those with lower autonomy from central government; providing acute services; and from half of England's regions. The random effects model showed that acute trusts received significantly more money on average than trusts with all other service profiles; and trusts from East England received significantly less than those from London. However, trusts enjoying greater autonomy from government did not receive significantly more money than others. Trusts also received significantly less money in 2018 than in 2015.

CONCLUSION

NHS trusts had extensive pharmaceutical industry ties but were losing importance as payment targets relative to other healthcare organisations. Industry payment strategies shifted towards events sponsorship, consultancies, and smaller payments. Trusts with specific service and geographical profiles were prioritised. Understanding corporate payments across the health system requires more granular disclosure data.

A Guide to Industry Payments and an Algorithm for Their Management

BACKGROUND

The Open Payments database was created to increase transparency of industry payment relationships within medicine. The current literature often examines only 1 year of the database. In this study, the authors use 5 years of data to show trends among industry payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018. In addition, the authors lay out the basics of conflict-of-interest reporting for the new plastic surgeon. Finally, the authors suggest an algorithm for the responsible management of industry relationships.

METHODS

This study analyzed nonresearch payments made to plastic surgeons from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R Statistical Software and visualized using Tableau.

RESULTS

A total of 304,663 payments totaling $140,889,747 were made to 8148 plastic surgeons; 41 percent ($58.28 million) was paid to 50 plastic surgeons in the form of royalty or license payments. With royalties excluded, average and median payments were $276 and $25. The average yearly total per physician was $2028. Of the 14 payment categories, 95 percent of the total amount paid was attributable payments in one of six categories. Seven hundred thirty companies reported payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018; 15 companies (2 percent) were responsible for 80 percent ($66.34 million) of the total sum paid. Allergan was responsible for $24.45 million (29.6 percent) of this amount.

CONCLUSIONS

Although discussions on the proper management of industry relationships continue to evolve, the data in this study illustrate the importance of managing industry relationships. The simple guidelines suggested create a basis for managing industry relationships in the career of the everyday plastic surgeon.

Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Financial payments from the drug industry to U.S. physicians are common. Payments may influence physicians' clinical decision making and drug prescribing.

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether receipt of payments from the drug industry is associated with physician prescribing practices.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EconLit were searched without language restrictions. The search had no limiting start date and concluded on 16 September 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that estimated the association between receipt of industry payments (exposure) and prescribing (outcome).

DATA EXTRACTION

Pairs of reviewers extracted the primary analysis or analyses from each study and evaluated risk of bias (ROB).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-six studies comprising 101 analyses were included. Most studies (n = 30) identified a positive association between payments and prescribing in all analyses; the remainder (n = 6) had a mix of positive and null findings. No study had only null findings. Of 101 individual analyses, 89 identified a positive association. Payments were associated with increased prescribing of the paying company's drug, increased prescribing costs, and increased prescribing of branded drugs. Nine studies assessed and found evidence of a temporal association; 25 assessed and found evidence of a dose-response relationship.

LIMITATION

The design was observational, 21 of 36 studies had serious ROB, and publication bias was possible.

CONCLUSION

The association between industry payments and physician prescribing was consistent across all studies that have evaluated this association. Findings regarding a temporal association and dose-response suggest a causal relationship.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine's conflict of interest policy

A vital mission of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine is to provide independent, objective, scientifically based information and recommendations for providers, patients, and payors of high-risk pregnancy care. To ensure that these recommendations are free from bias, special interest, or the perception of either, a publicly transparent process for disclosing relevant financial and nonfinancial interests (disclosures of interest) and management of potential conflicts of interest are essential. Educational and research presentations also require proper disclosure to allow attendees to properly assess information presented at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine events. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine established a task force to review the current Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine policies and procedures as they pertain to disclosure of interest and conflict of interest. To establish current best practices in disclosure of interest and conflict of interest definitions, reporting, and conflict of interest mitigation, members of the task force reviewed external literature, including policies of other medical organizations. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine is committed to a continuous process of improvement in the approach to these issues and will revise this policy as indicated.

Involvement of the food industry in nutrition conferences in Latin America and the Caribbean

OBJECTIVE

Identify and characterise the food industry's involvement in nutrition and dietetics national and regional events in Latin America and the Caribbean.

DESIGN

Between February and April 2020, we conducted desk-based searches for nutrition and dietetics events held in the region between January 2018 and December 2019. Online freely accessible, publicly available information was collected on the involvement of the food industry through: sponsorship of events; sponsorship of sessions; speakers from the food industry; scholarships, fellowship, grants, awards and other prizes and; exhibition space/booths.

SETTING

Nutrition and dietetics events in Latin America and the Caribbean.

RESULTS

Thirty-one events held in twenty countries of the region had information publicly available online at the period of data collection. There was a lack of transparency on the involvement of industry actors in these events. When information was publicly available, we found that a total of ninety-two food industry actors sponsored 88 % of these events.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a mostly unreported, but likely extensive, involvement of food industry actors in nutrition and dietetics events in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Association between Opioid Prescribing in Medicare and Pharmaceutical Company Gifts by Physician Specialty

BACKGROUND

The association between pharmaceutical industry promotion and physician opioid prescribing is poorly understood. Whether the influence of industry gifts on prescribing varies by specialty is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between opioid-related gifts to physicians and opioid prescribing in the subsequent year across 7 physician specialties.

DESIGN

Panel study using data from 2014 to 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

236,103 unique Medicare Part D physicians (389,622 physician-years) who received any gifts from pharmaceutical companies measured using Open Payments and prescribed opioids in the subsequent year.

MAIN MEASURES

Amounts paid by pharmaceutical companies for opioid-related gifts including meals and lodging; quartile of opioid prescribing as a percent of total prescribing compared with other same-specialty physicians.

KEY RESULTS

In 2014-2015, 14.1% of physician received opioid-related gifts from the industry with 2.6% receiving > $100. Gifts varied by specialty and were concentrated among two pharmaceutical companies responsible for 60% of the value of opioid-related gifts. Receiving opioid-related gifts was associated with greater prescribing of opioids compared with same-specialty physicians in the next year. Primary care physicians are nearly 3.5 times as likely to be in the highest quartile of prescribing versus the lower quartiles if they were paid ≥ $100. Psychiatrists and neurologists were 7 to 13 times as likely to be in a higher quartile of opioid prescribing compared with colleagues who were paid $0 in the preceding year.

CONCLUSIONS

The value of opioid-related gifts given to physicians varies substantially by provider specialty, as does the relationship between payment amounts and prescriber behavior in the following year.

Lessons from Corporate Influence in the Opioid Epidemic: Toward a Norm of Separation

There is overwhelming evidence that the opioid crisis-which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (and counting)-has been created or exacerbated by webs of influence woven by several pharmaceutical companies. These webs involve health professionals, patient advocacy groups, medical professional societies, research universities, teaching hospitals, public health agencies, policymakers, and legislators. Opioid companies built these webs as part of corporate strategies of influence that were designed to expand the opioid market from cancer patients to larger groups of patients with acute or chronic pain, to increase dosage as well as opioid use, to downplay the risks of addiction and abuse, and to characterize physicians' concerns about the addiction and abuse risks as "opiophobia." In the face of these pervasive strategies, conflict of interest policies have proven insufficient for addressing corporate influence in medical practice, medical research, and public health policy. Governments, the academy, and civil society need to develop counterstrategies to insulate themselves from corporate influence and to preserve their integrity and public trust. These strategies require a paradigm shift-from partnerships with the private sector, which are ordinarily vehicles for corporate influence, to a norm of separation.

Conflicts of interest in medicine: a never-ending story

Individuals may have conflicts of interest (CoI) when they choose between the duties of their jobs and their own private interests. In medicine, CoI are potentially ubiquitous and their disclosure has now become the most frequent strategy to address them in professional lives. In the medical literature, CoI are classified into two different types-financial and non-financial. Financial CoI are easy to identify and can bias any kind of results in research; so, their disclosure is very important. The unsolvable dilemma is where to set the lowest limit for sums received from industry. Non-financial CoI are a very large category intrinsically related to the individuals concerned, ranging from family relationships to religious beliefs, and the mere disclosure of many of them can raise privacy and ethical issues. Two opposite narratives characterize the debate on financial CoI caused by pharmaceutical industry. The critical side argues that, because the primary goal of pharmaceutical industry is inevitably to promote its products, the best strategy is to stay away from financial CoI. On the other hand, the defensive side claims that financial CoI are boosted by ideology but meaningless in real practice, since any kind of interest can raise a potential conflict. A missing point in the debate on financial CoI is that health care is a classical example of 'market failure' in the economic theory. Since health cannot be considered a 'consumer good', the economic paradigm of 'free market' does not fit for healthcare products. To conclude, even though transparency on financial CoI cannot itself deter the risk of bias, rejecting it would be an even bigger mistake. At variance, mandatory disclosure of non-financial CoI risks to be confusing and questionable in many cases, paradoxically distracting attention from the potential bias created by financial CoI.

Association between gifts from pharmaceutical companies to French general practitioners and their drug prescribing patterns in 2016: retrospective study using the French Transparency in Healthcare and National Health Data System databases

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between gifts from pharmaceutical companies to French general practitioners (GPs) and their drug prescribing patterns.

DESIGN

Retrospective study using data from two French databases (National Health Data System, managed by the French National Health Insurance system, and Transparency in Healthcare).

SETTING

Primary care, France.

PARTICIPANTS

41 257 GPs who in 2016 worked exclusively in the private sector and had at least five registered patients. The GPs were divided into six groups according to the monetary value of the received gifts reported by pharmaceutical, medical device, and other health related companies in the Transparency in Healthcare database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were the amount reimbursed by the French National Health Insurance for drug prescriptions per visit (to the practice or at home) and 11 drug prescription efficiency indicators used by the National Health Insurance to calculate the performance related financial incentives of the doctors. Doctor and patient characteristics were used as adjustment variables. The significance threshold was 0.001 for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The amount reimbursed by the National Health Insurance for drug prescriptions per visit was lower in the GP group with no gifts reported in the Transparency in Healthcare database in 2016 and since its launch in 2013 (no gift group) compared with the GP groups with at least one gift in 2016 (-€5.33 (99.9% confidence interval -€6.99 to -€3.66) compared with the GP group with gifts valued at €1000 or more reported in 2016) (P<0.001). The no gift group also more frequently prescribed generic antibiotics (2.17%, 1.47% to 2.88% compared with the ≥€1000 group), antihypertensives (4.24%, 3.72% to 4.77% compared with the ≥€1000 group), and statins (12.14%, 11.03% to 13.26% compared with the ≥€1000 group) than GPs with at least one gift between 2013 and 2016 (P<0.001). The no gift group also prescribed fewer benzodiazepines for more than 12 weeks (-0.68%, -1.13% to -0.23% compared with the €240-€999 group) and vasodilators (-0.15%, -0.28% to -0.03% compared with the ≥€1000 group) than GPs with gifts valued at €240 or more reported in 2016, and more angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors compared with all ACE and sartan prescriptions (1.67%, 0.62% to 2.71%) compared with GPs with gifts valued at €1000 or more reported in 2016 (P<0.001). Differences were not significant for the prescription of aspirin and generic antidepressants and generic proton pump inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that French GPs who do not receive gifts from pharmaceutical companies have better drug prescription efficiency indicators and less costly drug prescriptions than GPs who receive gifts. This observational study is susceptible to residual confounding and therefore no causal relation can be concluded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF register OSF.IO/8M3QR.

Relación médico-industria y los conflictos de interés: aspectos históricos y normativos, impactos negativos y propuestas

El presente artículo revisa de manera narrativa y general la relación entre los médicos y la industria (RMI); se incluye a la industria farmacéutica, de dispositivos, de suplementos y los conflictos de intereses que surgen de dicha relación. Se aborda el tema mediante algunas definiciones y un breve recuento histórico de cómo la RMI se ha convertido en un problema importante en el ejercicio médico y los sistemas de salud.El artículo expone los diversos roles dentro de los escenarios más comunes en los que ocurre la RMI: en la investigación biomédica, las guías de práctica clínica, la educación médica continua, la visita médica, los líderes de opinión, así como en la interacción directa, la exposición indirecta y la que denominamos exposición temprana. Se mencionan, posteriormente, algunas técnicas que utiliza la industria para modificar los hábitos de prescripción basadas en elementos de psicología social, así como el papel que ejercen los obsequios y otras estrategias de mercadeo.Se revisó la literatura que muestra el impacto y el efecto que estas técnicas tienen en el ejercicio médico. Finalmente, se plantean algunas propuestas que se han desarrollado desde la normatividad y recomendaciones para afrontar el problema que podrían contribuir a mitigar los efectos negativos de una RMI muy estrecha. Estas propuestas son prohibir el contacto de los estudiantes con la industria, la inclusión del tema de conflictos de intereses (CI) en los currículos de medicina, financiación alternativa de la educación continua, declaración de conflictos como norma, campañas de concientización, uso de evidencia sintetizada y analizada transparente e independientemente, entre otras.

Open data on industry payments to healthcare providers reveal potential hidden costs to the public

Healthcare industry players make payments to medical providers for non-research expenses. While these payments may pose conflicts of interest, their relationship with overall healthcare costs remains largely unknown. In this study, we linked Open Payments data on providers’ industry payments with Medicare data on healthcare costs. We investigated 374,766 providers’ industry payments and healthcare costs. We demonstrate that providers receiving higher amounts of industry payments tend to bill higher drug and medical costs. Specifically, we find that a 10% increase in industry payments is associated with 1.3% higher medical and 1.8% higher drug costs. For a typical provider, for example, a 10% or $25 increase in annual industry payments would be associated with approximately $1,100 higher medical costs and $100 higher drug costs. Furthermore, the association between payments and healthcare costs varies markedly across states and correlates with political leaning, being stronger in more conservative states.

Industry payments to healthcare providers for non-research costs are common in the US. Linking Medicare and Open Payments data, the authors find that providers receiving more industry payments tend to bill higher drug and medical costs, and this association is stronger in more conservative states.

Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest: Solving the Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma

PURPOSE

Confusion exists around the nature and best practices for authors in biomedical fields seeking to disclose conflicts of interest (COIs) and other information that can produce bias. Guidelines often provide principles for action and to avoid granularity that can limit their general usefulness. Journal editors must also interpret various guidelines to produce and enhance their own disclosure and COI policies. We discussion COIs and present heuristics that can enhance disclosure practices by individual authors and inform policy and practice among medical journal editors.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the biomedical literature and drew on professional and academic experience to develop examples and a suggested matrix for decision making.

FINDINGS

Most COI commentary centers on financial relationships. Disagreement still exists about the nature and impact of various forms of COI, making critical reasoning essential when making and interpreting disclosures. Journal editors, authors, critics, and other experts express varying opinions about best practices regarding COIs. Policy decisions should be balanced and reasonable. Narrative context may help readers understand the meaning and relevance of disclosures and COIs.

IMPLICATIONS

A balance of personal responsibility and critical thinking can enhance disclosure practices as well as confidence in the medical literature. Using a heuristic to think through possible areas of conflict can help authors provide more complete disclosure information. Providing narrative context can ease the burden of peer reviewers, editors, and readers trying to understand disclosures.

Industry payments to physician journal editors

Background

Open Payments is a United States federal program mandating reporting of medical industry payments to physicians, increasing transparency of physician conflicts of interest (COI). Study objectives were to assess industry payments to physician-editors, and to compare their financial COI rate to all physicians within the specialty.

Methods and findings

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, reviewing Open Payments from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016. We reviewed general payments (“… not made in connection with a research agreement”) and research funding to “top tier” physician-editors of highly-cited medical journals. We compared payments to physician-editors and physicians-by-specialty. In 35 journals, 333 (74.5%) of 447 “top tier” US-based editors met inclusion criteria. Of these, 212 (63.7%) received industry-associated payments in the study period. In an average year, 141 (42.3%) of physician-editors received any direct payments to themselves including general payments and research payments, 66 (19.8%) received direct payments >$5,000 (National Institutes of Health threshold for a Significant Financial Interest) and 51 (15.3%) received >$10,000. Mean annual general payments to physician-editors was $55,157 (median 3,512, standard deviation 561,885, range 10–10,981,153). Median general payments to physician-editors were mostly higher compared to all physicians within their specialty. Mean annual direct research payment to the physician-editor was $14,558 (median 4,000, range 15–174,440). Mean annual indirect research funding to the physician-editor’s institution (highly valued by academic leaders such as departmental chairs and deans) was $175,282 (median 49,107, range 0.18–5,000,000). The main study limitation was difficulty identifying physician-editors primarily responsible for making manuscript decisions.

Conclusions

A substantial minority of physician-editors receive payments from industry within any given year, sometimes quite large. Most editors received payment of some kind during the four-year study period. Given the extent of editors’ influences on the medical literature, more robust and accessible editor financial COI declarations are recommended.

The "Game of Implants": A Perspective on the Crisis-Prone History of Breast Implants

Since their introduction into the market, breast implants have been the subject of many controversies. It is timely to examine the forces that have shaped the breast implant industry to make it what it is today. This review will concentrate more on the use of implants in aesthetic surgery rather than their use in breast reconstruction, but some of the factors have relevance to both indications.

Financial relationships with industry among guideline authors for the management of acute ischemic stroke

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the prevalence of industry relationships among authors of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) guidelines and its association with graded evidence.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of five policy papers on AIS published by the American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA), American Academy of Emergency Physicians (AAEM), and American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) data were obtained using the Open Payments Database for the years 2013 through 2017. A search of publicly available information was done to determine post-guideline employment. We characterized the prevalence of FCOI, as well as employment with industry engaged in thrombolysis or neurointerventional treatment of AIS after guideline publication.

RESULTS

76 unique authors were identified in 5 policy statements. The prevalence of FCOI among authors of AAEM, ACEP, and AHA/ASA guidelines was 0%, 0%, and 35%, respectively. Post-publication increase in FCOI was 0% for authors of the AAEM and ACEP guidelines, and a 300% increase for authors of the 2013 AHA/ASA guidelines with data unavailable to assess post-publication FCOI for authors of the 2018 AHA/ASA guidelines. 2 authors were found to engage in new industry employment following recommendation publication. Finally, 9% (n = 3) authors of the 2013/2018 AHA/ASA guidelines were employees of the Genentech Speakers Bureau.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest an association between current Graded Evidence and FCOI of major academic societies for the management of AIS. Due to the bias inherent to such conflicts, future recommendation groups should take steps to insulate against FCOI both during and following guideline publication.

Industry Payments to Physicians and Prescriptions of Brand-Name Proton-Pump Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the association between industry payments and prescriptions of 2 brand-name proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective.

SETTING

Physicians nationwide.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We identified all physicians receiving industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium 2014-2015 from the Open Payments database. We linked this to records of prescriptions for PPIs paid for by Medicare Part D these same years and compared the proportion of prescriptions written for Dexilant and Nexium in industry-compensated vs nonindustry compensated physicians. The number and dollar amount of payments were associated with the rate of drug prescriptions.

RESULTS

We identified 254,452 physicians prescribing PPIs; 8586 and 2766 physicians received industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium, respectively. A total of 5052 of 7876 (64%) physicians compensated for Dexilant prescribed Dexilant vs 39,778 of 246,571 (16%) noncompensated physicians ( P < .001). For Nexium, 2525 of 2654 (95%) compensated physicians prescribed Nexium, compared to 123,913 of 252,067 (49%) noncompensated physicians. For both Dexilant and Nexium, there was a significant correlation between the number (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.12, P < .001) and dollar amount (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.13, P < .001) of payments and the percentage of prescriptions written for the compensated drug. Industry payments for Nexium remained associated with rate of prescription even after generic esomeprazole became available.

CONCLUSION

Both the number and dollar amount of industry payments were associated with increased prescriptions for both Dexilant and Nexium. Although unable to show causality, this study suggests that industry payments may increase physician prescriptions of costly, brand-name drugs.

Physician characteristics, industry transfers, and pharmaceutical prescribing: Empirical evidence from medicare and the physician payment sunshine act

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate physician characteristics associated with pharmaceutical industry transfers and prescribing behavior after public reporting under the Sunshine Act.

DATA SOURCES

2014-2016 secondary data on industry transfers to physicians from the Open Payments Dataset supplemented with Medicare Part D prescription data, Medicare service data, and practice attributes from the Physician Compare Database.

STUDY DESIGN

Using regression analysis with county/physician fixed effects, this study examines characteristics associated with the probability/magnitude of transfers and the association between transfers and prescriptions.

DATA COLLECTION

Using an iterative matching approach, this study identifies physicians who delivered outpatient Medicare services in 2014 (n = 409 041) and tracks their annual transfers between 2014 and 2016 (N = 1 227 123) across six transfer categories. In addition, it examines their Medicare Part D prescription behavior between 2014 and 2015 (N = 741 659).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Industry transfers dramatically declined in 2015 and 2016. Transfers are significantly associated with increased prescription costs, branded prescribing, and prescribing for High-Risk Medications (HRMs).

CONCLUSIONS

Industry transfers have declined after public reporting. Transfers are associated with higher prescription costs and incidence of HRMs. Future research is needed to determine the causal impact on quality and cost-effectiveness of prescribed medications.

Impact of adverse media reporting on public perceptions of the doctor-patient relationship in China: an analysis with propensity score matching method

OBJECTIVES

Numerous studies indicate that the doctor-patient relationship in China is facing serious challenges. This study examined the impact of China Central Television's negative coverage of high medicines prices on both doctors' and patients' opinions of the doctor-patient relationship.

SETTING

Data were collected in a national survey conducted during 19 December 2016 to 11 January 2017 which targeted 136 public tertiary hospitals across the country.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients and doctors who submitted completed questionnaire were retrieved from the survey database.

INTERVENTION

The study used propensity score matching method to match the respondents before and after China Central Television's news report about high medicines prices which was given at 00:00 hours on 24 December 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Perception scores were calculated based on the five-point Likert scales to measure the opinions of the doctor-patient relationship.

RESULTS

The perception scores of the doctor-patient relationship were significantly affected by the negative media coverage for hospitalised patients, who scored 1.18 lower on the doctor-patient relationship following the report (p=0.006, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.02), and doctors who scored 5.96 points lower on the same scale (p<0.001, 95% CI 4.11 to 7.82). Score for the ambulatory patients was unaffected by exposure to the adverse news report (p=0.05).

CONCLUSION

Chinese national media's reporting of adverse news negatively affected the perceptions of the doctor-patient relationship among both inpatients and doctors. A better understanding of the role of mass media in the formation of opinion and trust between doctors and patients may permit strategies for managing the media, in order to improve public perceptions of the doctor-patient relationship.

Dangers of neglecting non-financial conflicts of interest in health and medicine

Non-financial interests, and the conflicts of interest that may result from them, are frequently overlooked in biomedicine. This is partly due to the complex and varied nature of these interests, and the limited evidence available regarding their prevalence and impact on biomedical research and clinical practice. We suggest that there are no meaningful conceptual distinctions, and few practical differences, between financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, and accordingly, that both require careful consideration. Further, a better understanding of the complexities of non-financial conflicts of interest, and their entanglement with financial conflicts of interest, may assist in the development of a more sophisticated approach to all forms of conflicts of interest.

Association between industry payments and prescribing costly medications: an observational study using open payments and medicare part D data

Background

While many new medications may offer advantages over existing drugs, some newer drugs are reformulations of existing products that provide little innovation or incremental benefit while driving up drug costs. Despite the lack of benefit of these medications, prescribers may be motivated by payments made by the pharmaceutical industry. The objective of the study was to determine the association between payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical industry and prescriptions for certain selected costly brand name drugs.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, retrospective study linking the Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for 2014, including 667,278 physicians who prescribed one of 6 brand-name drugs with less costly but similarly effective alternatives: lovastatin ER, almotriptan, amlodipine+olmesartan, ibuprofen+famotidine, saxagliptin+metformin and naproxen+esomeprazole. The primary outcome was the odds of a physician prescribing one of the selected drugs, and the primary predictor was the receipt of any payment from the pharmaceutical industry.

Results

The odds of prescribing 3 of the 6 drugs were increased among physicians who received industry payment, compared to those without payment: amlodipine+olmesartan, aOR 1.42, (95% CI 1.36–1.49); saxagliptin+metformin, aOR 1.50, (95% CI 1.42–1.59); and naproxen+esomeprazole, aOR 1.45, (95% CI 1.25–1.68). Payment from the manufacturer of the specific drug, compared to not receiving payment from the drug’s manufacturer, was associated with increased odds of prescribing 4 of the 6 drugs: amlodipine+olmesartan, aOR 2.40, (95% CI 2.29–2.52), ibuprofen+famotidine, aOR 8.06, (95% CI 5.42–12.00), saxagliptin+metformin, aOR 2.21, (95% CI 2.10–2.34) and naproxen+esomeprazole, aOR 5.96, (95% CI 5.08–7.00).

Conclusions

A physician-industry financial relationship was associated with increased odds of prescribing costly brand-name drugs of uncertain medical benefit. Patients, as healthcare consumers, should demand transparency from their physicians about payment from the pharmaceutical industry to increase shared decision-making. Physician and policy makers need increased awareness and reflection on how industry payment influences their prescribing practices.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Update of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Policies and Procedures

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provides independent, objective, and scientifically rigorous recommendations for clinical preventive services. A primary concern is to avoid even the appearance of members having special interests that might influence their ability to judge evidence and formulate unbiased recommendations. The conflicts of interest policy for the USPSTF is described, as is the formal process by which best practices were incorporated to update the policy. The USPSTF performed a literature review, conducted key informant interviews, and reviewed conflicts of interest policies of ten similar organizations. Important findings included transparency and public accessibility; full disclosure of financial relationships; disclosure of non-financial relationships (that create the potential for bias and compromise a member's objective judgment); disclosure of family members' conflicts of interests; and establishment of appropriate reporting periods. Controversies in best practices include the threshold of financial disclosures, ease of access to conflicts of interest policies and declarations, vague definition of non-financial biases, and request for family members' conflicts of interests (particularly those that are non-financial in nature). The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy includes disclosures for immediate family members, a clear non-financial conflicts of interest definition, long look-back period and application of the policy to prospective members. Conflicts of interest is solicited from all members every 4 months, formally reviewed, adjudicated, and made publicly available. The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy is publicly available as part of the USPSTF Procedure Manual. A continuous improvement process can be applied to conflicts of interest policies to enhance public trust in members of panels, such as the USPSTF, that produce clinical guidelines and recommendations.

Deciphering the Sunshine Act: Transparency Regulation and Financial Conflicts in Health Care

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act ("Sunshine Act"), enacted to address financial conflicts in health care, is the first comprehensive federal legislation mandating public reporting of payments between drug companies, device manufacturers, and medicine. This article analyzes the Sunshine Act's uneven record, exploring how the law serves as an intriguing example of the uncertain case for transparency regulation in health care. The Sunshine Act's bumpy rollout demonstrates that commanding transparency through legislation can be arduous because of considerable implementation challenges. Capturing all the relevant information about financial relationships and reporting it with sufficient contextual and comparative data has proven disappointingly difficult. In addition, the law suffers from uncertainty and poor design as to the intended audience. Indeed, there is strong reason to believe that it will not significantly impact decision-making of primary recipients like patients. Yet the Sunshine Act nonetheless retains important and perhaps underappreciated value. From the almost four years of information generated, we have learned that industry-medicine financial ties vary significantly by physician specialty, and somewhat by physician gender. In many medical fields the distribution of top dollar payments tends to be heavily skewed to a few recipients, all of which have important implications for optimal management of financial conflicts and for health policy more generally. Accordingly, the Sunshine Act's greatest potential is not guiding decisions of individual patients or physicians, but its downstream effects. This Article traces how secondary audiences, such as regulators, watchdogs, and counsel are already starting to make productive use of Sunshine Act information. Public reporting has, for example, made more feasible linking industry payment information with Medicare reimbursement data. As a result, policymakers can more closely examine correlations between industry spending directed at individual physicians and their prescribing and referral decisions. Moreover, savvy counsel are recognizing that Sunshine Act information provides explosive evidence in private civil litigation and this Article explores the first wave of cases.