20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the UK: analysis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s Disclosure UK database, 2015 and 2016 cohorts

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database’s structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency.

          Design and participants

          Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.

          Results

          Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%–48% in 2015 and 46%–30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.

          Conclusions

          Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Meals and Physician Prescribing Patterns for Medicare Beneficiaries.

          The association between industry payments to physicians and prescribing rates of the brand-name medications that are being promoted is controversial. In the United States, industry payment data and Medicare prescribing records recently became publicly available.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association of Industry Payments to Physicians With the Prescribing of Brand-name Statins in Massachusetts.

            Pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians may affect prescribing practices and increase costs if more expensive medications are prescribed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Association between payments from manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and regional prescribing: cross sectional ecological study

              Objective To examine the association between payments made by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and prescribing by physicians within hospital referral regions. Design Cross sectional analysis of 2013 and 2014 Open Payments and Medicare Part D prescribing data for two classes of commonly prescribed, commonly marketed drugs: oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs, overall and stratified by physician and payment type. Setting 306 hospital referral regions, United States. Participants 45 949 454 Medicare Part D prescriptions written by 623 886 physicians to 10 513 173 patients for two drug classes: oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs. Main outcome measures Proportion, or market share, of marketed oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs prescribed by physicians among all drugs in each class and within hospital referral regions. Results Among 306 hospital referral regions, there were 977 407 payments to physicians totaling $61 026 140 (£46 174 600; €54 632 500) related to oral anticoagulants, and 1 787 884 payments totaling $108 417 616 related to non-insulin diabetes drugs. The median market share of the hospital referral regions was 21.6% for marketed oral anticoagulants and 12.6% for marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs. Among hospital referral regions, one additional payment (median value $13, interquartile range, $10-$18) was associated with 94 (95% confidence interval 76 to 112) additional days filled of marketed oral anticoagulants and 107 (89 to 125) additional days filled of marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs (P<0.001). Payments to specialists were associated with greater prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists (212 v 100 additional days filled per payment of marketed oral anticoagulants, 331 v 114 for marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs, P<0.001). Payments for speaker and consulting fees for non-insulin diabetes drugs were associated with greater prescribing of marketed drugs than payments for food and beverages or educational materials (484 v 110, P<0.001). Conclusions and study limitations Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials. As a cross sectional, ecological study, we cannot prove causation between payments to physicians and increased prescribing. Furthermore, our findings should be interpreted only at the regional level. Our study is limited to prescribing by physicians and the two drug classes studied.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2018
                21 October 2018
                : 8
                : 10
                : e023094
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Sociology , Lund University , Lund, Sweden
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Social and Policy Sciences , University of Bath , Bath, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Shai Mulinari; shai.mulinari@ 123456soc.lu.se
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-023094
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023094
                6196800
                30344175
                4a9f332c-6bec-4630-8e7d-b3ff2b4904f4
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 20 March 2018
                : 01 August 2018
                : 18 September 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006636, Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd;
                Categories
                Health Policy
                Research
                1506
                1703
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                transparency,pharmaceutical industry,conflict of interest,disclosure,united kingdom,self-regulation

                Comments

                Comment on this article