Dataset Information

Payments from drug companies to physicians are associated with higher volume and more expensive opioid analgesic prescribing.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While the rise in opioid analgesic prescribing and overdose deaths was multifactorial, financial relationships between opioid drug manufacturers and physicians may be one important factor. METHODS:Using national data from 2013 to 2015, we conducted a retrospective cohort study linking the Open Payments database and Medicare Part D drug utilization data. We created two cohorts of physicians, those receiving opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013, and those receiving opioid-related payments in 2015 but not in 2013 and 2014. Our main outcome measures were expenditures on filled prescriptions, daily doses filled, and expenditures per daily dose. For each cohort, we created a comparison group that did not receive an opioid-related payment in any year and was matched on state, specialty, and baseline opioid expenditures. We used a difference-in-differences analysis with linear generalized estimating equations regression models. RESULTS:We identified 6,322 physicians who received opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013; they received a mean total of $251. Relative to comparison group physicians, they had a significantly larger increase in mean opioid expenditures ($6,171; 95% CI: 4,997 to 7,346), daily doses dispensed (1,574; 95%CI: 1,330 to 1,818) and mean expenditures per daily dose ($0.38; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.47). We identified 8,669 physicians who received opioid-related payments in 2015, but not in 2013 or 2014; they received a mean total of $40. Relative to comparison physicians, they also had a larger increase in mean opioid expenditures ($1,031; 95% CI: 603 to 1,460), daily doses dispensed (557; 95% CI: 417 to 697), and expenditures per daily dose ($0.06; 95% CI: 0.002 to 0.13). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings add to the growing public policy concern that payments from opioid drug manufacturers can influence physician prescribing. Interventions are needed to reduce such promotional activities or to mitigate their influence.

SUBMITTER: Zezza MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6300290 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Payments from drug companies to physicians are associated with higher volume and more expensive opioid analgesic prescribing.

Zezza Mark A MA Bachhuber Marcus A MA

PloS one 20181219 12

<h4>Background</h4>While the rise in opioid analgesic prescribing and overdose deaths was multifactorial, financial relationships between opioid drug manufacturers and physicians may be one important factor.<h4>Methods</h4>Using national data from 2013 to 2015, we conducted a retrospective cohort study linking the Open Payments database and Medicare Part D drug utilization data. We created two cohorts of physicians, those receiving opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013, and t ...[more]

PMID: 30566426

Similar Datasets

Project description:The prescription of opioid analgesics by dental professionals is widespread in the United States. Policy makers, government agencies, and professional organizations consider this phenomenon a growing public health concern. This study examined trends in the prescription of opioid analgesics for adults by dental professionals and associated factors in the United States. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (1996-2013) were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated separately for each year. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the overall trend during the period with and without adjusting for dental procedures and personal characteristics. Survey weights were incorporated to handle the sampling design. The prescription of opioid analgesics following dental care increased over time. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, source of payment, and type of dental procedure, the odds ratio (OR) of prescribing opioid analgesics following a dental visit per each decade difference was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.38). Surgical, root canal, and implant procedures had the highest rates of opioid prescriptions and the greatest increases in rates over the study period. After adjusting for personal characteristics and type of dental procedure, the OR of receiving a prescription for opioids comparing blacks, Asians, and Hispanics to whites was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17-1.41), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.47-0.70), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.95), respectively. Opioid analgesic prescriptions following dental visits increased over time after adjusting for personal characteristics and type of dental procedure. The odds of receiving a prescription for opioids were higher for certain racial/ethnic minority groups. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study highlights dental professionals prescribing practices of opioid analgesics by following dental treatments in the United States. With this knowledge, appropriate guidelines, protocols, and policies can be developed and implemented to address any inappropriate prescribing practices of opioid analgesics. In addition, this information could lead to an improvement in the prescribing practices of dental professionals and to evidence-based therapeutic decision making.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate German physicians' attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies in a public database and their impact on future decisions for or against disclosure.DesignA national cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018 among physicians who voluntarily disclosed at least one payment in the German transparency regulation.SettingRetrospective paper-pencil questionnaire about attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary payment disclosures in the first (2015) and second (2016) years of the German transparency regulation.ParticipantsGerman physicians who disclosed either in the first year only, the second year only, or in both years of the transparency regulation.Primary outcomes(1) The probability to disclose in 2016, predicted by physicians' experience of reactions from others in 2015, descriptive norms and attitudes towards transparency; (2) Frequency and (3) Content of reactions from others in 2015 compared with 2016.ResultsData of 234 respondents were analysed (n=42, 45 and 147 physicians who disclosed in 2015, 2016 or both years, respectively). The probability to disclose in 2016 was not predicted by perceived reactions, norms or attitudes towards transparency (p>0.01). Most participants reported not to have received any reactions by patients (190/234, 81%), colleagues (128/234, 55%) or the private environment (153/234, 65%). Neither frequency nor content of reactions differed between the first and second years (scale 1-5; frequency: Mdn 2015,2016 = 1.33 vs 1.00, r b=-0.17, p>0.01; content: Mdn 2015,2016 = 3.00 vs 3.00, r b=0.19, p>0.01). However, media reporting, fear of reputational damage and a feeling of being defamed were mentioned as reasons for non-disclosure.ConclusionsWhile confirmatory analyses did not provide significant results, descriptive analyses showed that participants who voluntarily disclose payments mainly do not experience any reactions towards their disclosures but report fears about losing their reputation due to disclosures.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical companies spent $57.5 billion on pharmaceutical promotion in the United States in 2004. The industry claims that promotion provides scientific and educational information to physicians. While some evidence indicates that promotion may adversely influence prescribing, physicians hold a wide range of views about pharmaceutical promotion. The objective of this review is to examine the relationship between exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing.Methods and findingsWe searched for studies of physicians with prescribing rights who were exposed to information from pharmaceutical companies (promotional or otherwise). Exposures included pharmaceutical sales representative visits, journal advertisements, attendance at pharmaceutical sponsored meetings, mailed information, prescribing software, and participation in sponsored clinical trials. The outcomes measured were quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing. We searched Medline (1966 to February 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to February 2008), Embase (1997 to February 2008), Current Contents (2001 to 2008), and Central (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007) using the search terms developed with an expert librarian. Additionally, we reviewed reference lists and contacted experts and pharmaceutical companies for information. Randomized and observational studies evaluating information from pharmaceutical companies and measures of physicians' prescribing were independently appraised for methodological quality by two authors. Studies were excluded where insufficient study information precluded appraisal. The full text of 255 articles was retrieved from electronic databases (7,185 studies) and other sources (138 studies). Articles were then excluded because they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (179) or quality appraisal criteria (18), leaving 58 included studies with 87 distinct analyses. Data were extracted independently by two authors and a narrative synthesis performed following the MOOSE guidelines. Of the set of studies examining prescribing quality outcomes, five found associations between exposure to pharmaceutical company information and lower quality prescribing, four did not detect an association, and one found associations with lower and higher quality prescribing. 38 included studies found associations between exposure and higher frequency of prescribing and 13 did not detect an association. Five included studies found evidence for association with higher costs, four found no association, and one found an association with lower costs. The narrative synthesis finding of variable results was supported by a meta-analysis of studies of prescribing frequency that found significant heterogeneity. The observational nature of most included studies is the main limitation of this review.ConclusionsWith rare exceptions, studies of exposure to information provided directly by pharmaceutical companies have found associations with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality or have not found significant associations. We did not find evidence of net improvements in prescribing, but the available literature does not exclude the possibility that prescribing may sometimes be improved. Still, we recommend that practitioners follow the precautionary principle and thus avoid exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Emergency physicians provide primary care to patients and often prescribe opioids for acutely painful self-limiting conditions. The objective of this study was to describe patterns of opioid prescribing by emergency physicians and family physicians and to explore the relation between setting of initiation of opioid treatment and adverse events over the subsequent 2 years. METHODS:This was a population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario. Opioid-naive patients aged 15-64 years who received an opioid prescription for noncancer pain from an emergency or family physician between Apr. 1, 2008, and Mar. 31, 2012 were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS:A total of 34?713 and 45?952 patients were initiated on an opioid by an emergency physicians and family physicians, respectively. Both emergency and family physicians most commonly prescribed codeine-containing products (58.9% and 79.6% of prescriptions, respectively); however, emergency physicians were twice as likely as family physicians to prescribe higher-potency opioids (morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, meperidine) (both combination and single-agent preparations) (40.6% v. 19.9%, ? = 20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20.0-21.3). Compared to patients in the family physician group, those in the emergency physician group received significantly higher daily dosages, a higher proportion were initiated on a daily dosage of 100 mg of morphine equivalents (MEQs) or more, and had a hospital admission for opioid toxicity within 2 years (0.5% v. 0.3%, ? = 0.2%, 95% CI 0.1%-0.3%). A higher proportion of patients in the family physician group than in the emergency physician group had dosage escalation beyond 199 mg MEQs within 2 years (0.7% v. 0.1%, ? = 0.6%, 95% CI 0.5%-0.7%). INTERPRETATION:Codeine was the most common opioid prescribed by emergency and family physicians. Compared to patients prescribed opioids by family physicians, those prescribed opioids by emergency physicians received higher initial daily dosages and had an increased likelihood of opioid toxicity.

Dataset Information

Payments from drug companies to physicians are associated with higher volume and more expensive opioid analgesic prescribing.

Publications

Payments from drug companies to physicians are associated with higher volume and more expensive opioid analgesic prescribing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets