Dataset Information

Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States.

ABSTRACT: The pharmaceutical industry spends roughly 15 billion dollars annually on detailing - providing gifts, information, samples, trips, honoraria and other inducements - to physicians in order to encourage them to prescribe their drugs. In response, several states in the United States adopted policies that restrict detailing. Some states banned gifts from pharmaceutical companies to doctors, other states simply required physicians to disclose the gifts they receive, while most states allowed unrestricted detailing. We exploit this geographic variation to examine the relationship between gift regulation and the diffusion of four newly marketed medications. Using a dataset that captures 189 million psychotropic prescriptions written between 2005 and 2009, we find that uptake of new costly medications was significantly lower in states with marketing regulation than in areas that allowed unrestricted pharmaceutical marketing. In states with gift bans, we observed reductions in market shares ranging from 39% to 83%. Policies banning or restricting gifts were associated with the largest reductions in uptake. Disclosure policies were associated with a significantly smaller reduction in prescribing than gift bans and gift restrictions. In states that ban gift-giving, peer influence substituted for pharmaceutical detailing when a relatively beneficial drug came to market and provided a less biased channel for physicians to learn about new medications. Our work suggests that policies banning or limiting gifts from pharmaceutical representatives to doctors are likely to be more effective than disclosure policies alone.

SUBMITTER: King M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5154797 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States.

King Marissa M Bearman Peter S PS

Social science & medicine (1982) 20161109

The pharmaceutical industry spends roughly 15 billion dollars annually on detailing - providing gifts, information, samples, trips, honoraria and other inducements - to physicians in order to encourage them to prescribe their drugs. In response, several states in the United States adopted policies that restrict detailing. Some states banned gifts from pharmaceutical companies to doctors, other states simply required physicians to disclose the gifts they receive, while most states allowed unrestr ...[more]

PMID: 27856120

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesPsychotropic and opioid medications are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice, but national estimates of prescribing are lacking. Changes in Medicare hospice payment in 2014 provide the first opportunity to examine psychotropic and opioid prescribing among hospice beneficiaries, and the factors associated with use of specific medication classes.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a 20% sample of traditional and managed Medicare with Part D enrolled in hospice, 2014-2016.SettingBeneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries ≥65 newly enrolled in hospice between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (N = 554,022).Main outcomePrevalence of psychotropic and opioid medication prescribing by class and factors associated with prescribing.Results70.3% of hospice beneficiaries were prescribed a psychotropic and 63.3% were prescribed an opioid. The most common psychotropic classes prescribed were: benzodiazepines (60.6%), antipsychotics (38.3%), antidepressants (18.4%), and antiepileptics (10.2%). Lorazepam (56.4%), morphine (52.8%), and haloperidol (28.6%) were received by the most beneficiaries. Prevalence of any psychotropic and opioid prescription was highest among beneficiaries who were female (76.7%), non-Hispanic white (76.6%), and those with cancer (78.9%). Compared to white beneficiaries, non-Hispanic black beneficiaries were less likely to receive nearly every class of medication, with significantly lower odds of receiving opioids (64.1% vs 57.9%; AOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.77) and benzodiazepines (61.6% vs 52.2%; AOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64-0.68). Differences were seen across hospice diagnosis; those with cancer were more likely to receive opioids, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics but less likely to receive antidepressants and antiepileptics.ConclusionsPsychotropic and opioid medications are frequently prescribed in hospice. Observed variations in prescribing across race and ethnicity may reflect disparities in prescribing as well as patient preferences for care. Further work is important to understand factors driving prescribing given limited studies surrounding medication prescribing in hospice.

Project description:ObjectiveWe undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.ResultsThe response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.ConclusionMany more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.

Project description:BackgroundConflicts of interest (COI) jeopardize the validity of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). When the Institute of Medicine promulgated COI policies in 2011, few organizations met these requirements, but it is unknown if organizations have improved their policies since that time. We sought to evaluate current adherence to IOM standards of COI policies.Methods and findingsWe conducted a retrospective document review of COI policies and CPGs from organizations that published five or more CPGs between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Organizations were identified via CPG databases. COI policies were obtained from an internet search. We collected data on i) the number of organizations that have COI policies specific to CPG development, ii) the number of policies meeting each IOM standard and iii) the number of IOM standards met by each policy. COI disclosures from five CPGs of each organization were assessed for adherence to IOM standards. Among the 46 organizations that published 5 or more CPGs, 36 (78%) had a COI policy. Standard 2.2b (requiring divestment of financial COI) was met least frequently, by 2 of 36 (6%) organizations. Standard 2.1 (requiring disclosure of COI) was met most frequently, by 33 of 36 (92%) organizations. A total of 31 of 36 (86%) organizations met 4 or fewer of the 7 IOM standards. Among the 16 organizations limiting COI to a minority of the CPG panel (standard 2.4c) and the 15 organizations prohibiting COI among chairs or co-chairs (standard 2.4d), 12 (75%) and 10 (67%) organizations violated the respective standard in at least one CPG. The main limitations of our study are the exclusion of organizations producing fewer CPGs and ability to assess only publicly available policies.ConclusionAmong organizations producing CPGs, COI policies frequently do not meet IOM standards, and organizations often violate their own policies. These shortcomings may undermine the public trust in and thus the utility of CPGs. CPG-producing organizations should improve their COI policies and their strategies to manage COI to increase the trustworthiness of CPGs.

Project description:BackgroundDrug companies rely on their marketing activities to influence physicians. Previous studies showed that pharmaceutical companies succeeded to manage physicians prescribing behavior in developed countries. However, very little studies investigated the impact of pharmaceutical marketing strategies on prescribing pattern in developing countries, middle-eastern countries. The objective of this research was to examine the influence of drug companies' strategies on physicians' prescription behavior in the Lebanese market concerning physicians' demographic variables quantitatively. Moreover, this study tested whether Lebanese physicians considered gifts and samples acceptance as an ethical practice.MethodsSampling was done by using a non-probability method. An online cross-sectional study was conducted through WhatsApp. A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted during the months of February and March 2018. Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed by using IBM SPSS statistics version 24 software. Chi-square and Cramer's v tests were used to finding sign correlation, and Spearman test was used to measure the strength and direction of a relationship between variables.ResultsResults found that pharmaceutical marketing strategies are correlated to physicians' prescribing behavior. We demonstrated that the majority of the promotional tools tested were mostly or sometimes motivating physicians to prescribe promoted drugs. The major tools that physicians agreed to be mostly motivated by are visits of medical representatives and drug samples while sales calls made by pharmaceutical companies are the less influential tool. Regarding gift acceptance, this study demonstrated that physicians consider gifts' acceptance as a non-ethical practice. Results showed that most physicians use free samples to treat their patients. We demonstrated that there is a relationship between physicians' prescribing pattern and their age, gender and the location of practice.ConclusionsFindings of this study provided an insightful work, serving as one of the first humble steps in the imminent direction of merging this paper with the previous literature. From a managerial perspective, pharmaceutical marketing managers of drug companies can use the research findings to design better their strategies directed to the Lebanese physicians who can also benefit from the results obtained.

Dataset Information

Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States.

Publications

Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets