Dataset Information

Medical school gift restriction policies and physician prescribing of newly marketed psychotropic medications: difference-in-differences analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the effect of attending a medical school with an active policy on restricting gifts from representatives of pharmaceutical and device industries on subsequent prescribing behavior.

Design

Difference-in-differences approach.

Setting

14 US medical schools with an active gift restriction policy in place by 2004.

Participants

Prescribing patterns in 2008 and 2009 of physicians attending one of the schools compared with physicians graduating from the same schools before the implementation of the policy, as well as a set of contemporary matched controls.

Main outcome measure

Probability that a physician would prescribe a newly marketed medication over existing alternatives of three psychotropic classes: lisdexamfetamine among stimulants, paliperidone among antipsychotics, and desvenlafaxine among antidepressants. None of these medications represented radical breakthroughs in their respective classes.

Results

For two of the three medications examined, attending a medical school with an active gift restriction policy was associated with reduced prescribing of the newly marketed drug. Physicians who attended a medical school with an active conflict of interest policy were less likely to prescribe lisdexamfetamine over older stimulants (adjusted odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.88; P=0.02) and paliperidone over older antipsychotics (0.25, 0.07 to 0.85; P=0.03). A significant effect was not observed for desvenlafaxine (1.54, 0.79 to 3.03; P=0.20). Among cohorts of students who had a longer exposure to the policy or were exposed to more stringent policies, prescribing rates were further reduced.

Conclusion

Exposure to a gift restriction policy during medical school was associated with reduced prescribing of two out of three newly introduced psychotropic medications.

SUBMITTER: King M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3623604 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn an effort to regulate physician conflicts of interest, some US academic medical centers (AMCs) enacted policies restricting pharmaceutical representative sales visits to physicians (known as detailing) between 2006 and 2012. Little is known about the effect of these policies on physician prescribing.ObjectiveTo analyze the association between detailing policies enacted at AMCs and physician prescribing of actively detailed and not detailed drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThe study used a difference-in-differences multivariable regression analysis to compare changes in prescribing by physicians before and after implementation of detailing policies at AMCs in 5 states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York) that made up the intervention group with changes in prescribing by a matched control group of similar physicians not subject to a detailing policy.ExposuresAcademic medical center implementation of policies regulating pharmaceutical salesperson visits to attending physicians.Main outcomes and measuresThe monthly within-drug class market share of prescriptions written by an individual physician for detailed and nondetailed drugs in 8 drug classes (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, diabetes drugs, antihypertensive drugs, hypnotic drugs approved for the treatment of insomnia [sleep aids], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, antidepressant drugs, and antipsychotic drugs) comparing the 10- to 36-month period before implementation of the detailing policies with the 12- to 36-month period after implementation, depending on data availability.ResultsThe analysis included 16 121 483 prescriptions written between January 2006 and June 2012 by 2126 attending physicians at the 19 intervention group AMCs and by 24 593 matched control group physicians. The sample mean market share at the physician-drug-month level for detailed and nondetailed drugs prior to enactment of policies was 19.3% and 14.2%, respectively. Exposure to an AMC detailing policy was associated with a decrease in the market share of detailed drugs of 1.67 percentage points (95% CI, -2.18 to -1.18 percentage points; P < .001) and an increase in the market share of nondetailed drugs of 0.84 percentage points (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.14 percentage points; P < .001). Associations were statistically significant for 6 of 8 study drug classes for detailed drugs (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, antihypertensive drugs, sleep aids, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, and antidepressant drugs) and for 9 of the 19 AMCs that implemented policies. Eleven of the 19 AMCs regulated salesperson gifts to physicians, restricted salesperson access to facilities, and incorporated explicit enforcement mechanisms. For 8 of these 11 AMCs, there was a significant change in prescribing. In contrast, there was a significant change at only 1 of 8 AMCs that did not enact policies in all 3 areas.Conclusions and relevanceImplementation of policies at AMCs that restricted pharmaceutical detailing between 2006 and 2012 was associated with modest but significant reductions in prescribing of detailed drugs across 6 of 8 major drug classes; however, changes were not seen in all of the AMCs that enacted policies.

Project description:BackgroundPromoting appropriate pharmacotherapy requires understanding the factors that influence how clinicians prescribe medications. While prior work has focused on patient and clinician factors, features of the organizational setting have received less attention, though identifying sources of variation in prescribing may help identify opportunities to improve patient safety and outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between the number of clinicians who prescribe medications in a facility and facility prescribing intensity of six individual medication classes by clinician specialty: benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, and antidepressants by psychiatrists and antibiotics, opioids, antiepileptics, and antidepressants by primary care clinicians (PCPs).DesignWe used 2017 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative data.SubjectsWe included patient-clinician dyads of older patients (> 55 years) with an outpatient encounter with a clinician in 2017. Patient-clinician data from 140 VHA facilities were included (n = 13,347,658). Analysis was repeated for years 2014 to 2016.Main measuresFor each medication, facility prescribing intensity measures were calculated as clinician prescribing intensity averaged over all clinicians at each facility. Clinician prescribing intensity measures included percentage of each clinician's patients prescribed the medication and mean number of days supply per patient among all patients of each clinician.Key resultsAs the number of prescribing clinicians in a facility increased, the intensity of prescribing decreased. Every increase of 10 facility clinicians was associated with a significant decline in prescribing intensity for both specialties for different medication classes: for psychiatrists, declines ranged from 6 to 11%, and for PCPs, from 2 to 3%. The pattern of more clinicians less prescribing was significant across all years.ConclusionFuture work should explore the mechanisms that link the number of facility clinicians with prescribing intensity for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, antidepressants, antibiotics, and opioids. Facilities with fewer clinicians may need additional resources to avoid unwanted prescribing of potentially harmful or unnecessary medications.