Dataset Information

Pharmaceutical industry payments and assisted reproduction in Australia: a retrospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the extent and nature of pharmaceutical industry payments related to fertility and assisted reproduction in Australia.

Design and setting

This retrospective observational study employed four databases compiled from publicly available pharmaceutical industry transparency reports on educational event sponsorship (October 2011-April 2018), payments to healthcare professionals (October 2015-April 2018) and patient group support (January 2013-December 2017). Analyses were restricted to fertility-related payments by two major manufacturers of fertility medicines in Australia: Merck Serono and Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD).

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Descriptive statistics on fertility-related payments and other transfers of value (counts, total and median costs in Australian dollars) for educational events and to healthcare professionals and patient groups.

Results

Between October 2011 and April 2018, Merck Serono and MSD spent $A4 522 263 on 970 fertility-related events for healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and fertility scientists. 56.8% (551/970) events were held by fertility clinics and 29.3% (284/970) by professional medical associations. Between October 2015 and April 2018, Merck Serono spent $A403 800 across 177 payments to 118 fertility healthcare professionals, predominantly for educational event attendance. Recipients included obstetricians and gynaecologists (76.3% of payments, 135/177), nurses (11.3%, 20/177) and embryologists/fertility scientists (9.6%, 17/117). The highest paid healthcare professionals held leadership positions in major fertility clinics. Merck Serono provided $A662 850 to fertility-related patient groups for advocacy and education (January 2013-December 2017).

Conclusions

The pharmaceutical industry sponsored a broad range of fertility clinicians and organisations, including doctors, nurses, embryologists, professional medical organisations, fertility clinics and patient groups. This sponsorship may contribute to the overuse of fertility services.

SUBMITTER: Karanges EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the association between physician characteristics and the value of industry payments. DESIGN:Observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Using the 2015-2017 Open Payments reports of industry payments linked to the Physician Compare database, we examined the association between physician characteristics (physician sex, years in practice, medical school attended and specialty) and the industry payment value, adjusting for other physician characteristic and institution fixed effects (effectively comparing physicians practicing at the same institution). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Our primary outcome was the value of total industry payments to physicians including (1) general payments (all forms of payments other than those classified for research purpose, eg, consulting fees, food, beverage), (2) research payments (payments for research endeavours under a written contract or protocol) and (3) ownership interests (eg, stock or stock options, bonds). We also investigated each category of payment separately. RESULTS:Of 544 264 physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, a total of $5.8 billion in industry payments were made to 365 801 physicians during 2015-2017. The top 5% of physicians, by cumulative payments, accounted for 91% of industry payments. Within the same institution, male physicians, physicians with 21-30 years in practice and physicians who attended top 50 US medical schools (based on the research ranking) received higher industry payments. Across specialties, orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and endocrinologists received the highest payments. When we investigated individual types of payment, we found that orthopaedic surgeons received the highest general payments; haematologists/oncologists were the most likely to receive research payments and surgeons were the most likely to receive ownership interests compared with other types of physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Industry payments to physicians were highly concentrated among a small number of physicians. Male sex, longer length of time in clinical practice, graduated from a top-ranked US medical school and practicing certain specialties, were independently associated with higher industry payments.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the nature, frequency and content of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-related events for healthcare professionals sponsored by the manufacturers of the NOACs in Australia. A secondary objective is to compare these data to the rate of dispensing of the NOACs in Australia.Design and settingThis cross-sectional study examined consolidated data from publicly available Australian pharmaceutical industry transparency reports from October 2011 to September 2015 on NOAC-related educational events. Data from April 2011 to June 2016 on NOAC dispensing, subsidised under Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), were obtained from the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services.Main outcome measuresCharacteristics of NOAC-related educational events including costs (in Australian dollars, $A), numbers of events, information on healthcare professional attendees and content of events; and NOAC dispensing rates.ResultsDuring the study period, there were 2797 NOAC-related events, costing manufacturers a total of $A10 578 745. Total expenditure for meals and beverages at all events was $A4 238 962. Events were predominantly attended by general practitioners (42%, 1174/2797), cardiologists (35%, 977/2797) and haematologists (23%, 635/2797). About 48% (1347/2797) of events were held in non-clinical settings, mainly restaurants, bars and cafes. Around 55% (1551/2797) of events consisted of either conferences, meetings or seminars. The analysis of the content presented at two events detected promotion of NOACs for unapproved indications, an emphasis on a favourable benefit/harm profile, and that all speakers had close ties with the manufacturers of the NOACs. Following PBS listings relevant to each NOAC, the numbers of events related to that NOAC and the prescribing of that NOAC increased.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the substantial investment in NOAC-related events made by four pharmaceutical companies had a promotional purpose. Healthcare professionals should seek independent information on newly subsidised medicines from, for example, government agencies or drug bulletins.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study investigated payments made by pharmaceutical companies to oncology specialists in Japan, what the payments were for and whether the receipt of such payments contravened any conflict of interest (COI) regulations. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Payment data to physicians, as reported by all pharmaceutical companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, were retrospectively extracted for 2016. Of the named individual recipients of payments, all certified oncologists were identified, using certification data from the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO). The individual specialisations of each of the oncologists was also identified. OUTCOME:Payments to individual cancer specialists and what they were for were identified. Factors associated with receipt of higher value payments and payment flows to specialties were determined. Companies selling oncology drugs with annual sales of ?5 billion yen (£33.9 million, €40.2 million and $46.0 million) (high revenue-generating drugs) were identified. RESULTS:In total, 59 companies made at least one payment to oncologists. Of the 1080 oncology specialists identified, 763 (70.6%) received at least one payment, while 317 received no payment. Of the 763, some 142 (13.1%) receiving at least 1 million yen (£6,800, €8,000 and $9200) accounted for 71.5% of the total. After adjustment of covariates, working for university hospitals and cancer hospitals and male gender were key factors associated with larger monetary payments. Payments preferentially targeted on cancer specialties using high revenue-generating drugs. The JSMO has its own COI policy for its members, but the policy did not mention any specific guidelines for certified oncology specialists. CONCLUSION:Financial relationships were identified and quantified between pharmaceutical companies and oncology specialists, but the extent and worth varied significantly. Given the frequency and amounts of money involved in such linkages, it would be beneficial for specific COI regulations to be developed and policed for oncologists.

Project description:ImportanceDrug company payments to health care organizations can create conflicts of interest. However, little is known about such financial relationships, especially outside the United States.ObjectiveTo examine the concentration and patterns of drug company payments to health care organizations in the United Kingdom.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study examined nonresearch payments reported in the industry-run Disclosure UK database. Companies participating in Disclosure UK in 2015 and health care organizations receiving their payments were included in the analysis. The data were analyzed descriptively at the health care organization, payment, and donor levels, considering health care organization categories, payment categories, and companies from February 5 through May 28, 2017, with follow-up checks from June 1 through August 31, 2018. Analysis was conducted from July 10 through December 20, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresShare of funding and the Gini index (GI) to measure payment concentration (0 indicates perfect deconcentration [eg, all drug companies provide the same value of payments]; 1, perfect concentration [eg, 1 company provides the entire value of payments]) and median and interquartile range (IQR) to measure payment patterns.ResultsA total of 4028 health care organizations received 19 933 payments, worth US $72 110 156.6, from 100 companies. This study identified 11 categories of health care organizations, with 3-public-sector secondary and tertiary care providers, education and research providers, and professional organizations-accumulating 67.2% of funding. The health care organization categories had varying GIs (range, 0.65-0.92), medians (range, $750.3-$45 862.4), and IQRs (range, $389.1-$1843.9 to $3104.4-$199 868.2). Of 4 payment categories, the top category-donations and grants-captured 50.6% of funding. Joint working (collaborative projects with nonindustry partners) had a lower GI (0.64) than other payment categories (range, 0.79-0.84). The median and IQR were the lowest for contributions to costs of events ($366.8; IQR, $229.3-611.3) and highest for joint working ($14 903.7; IQR, $3185.0-34,748.4). The top 10 firms (58.6% of funding) had payments with varying medians (from $366.8 [IQR, $244.5-611.3] to $9781.3 [IQR, $1834.0-48 906.7]).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough organizations from across the health care system received funding, the payments were concentrated on a few large donors, payments, and recipients. Different payment and recipient categories had different patterns of payment values, suggesting that the industry has diversified its funding strategies across different parts of the health care system. These results suggest that Disclosure UK requires improved transparency, particularly by including built-in recipient categories, and that organizational conflicts of interest need more policy attention, including disclosure of payments independent of the industry.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the association between oncologists' receipt of payments from the pharmaceutical industry and delivery of non-recommended or low value interventions among their patients.DesignCohort study.SettingFee-for-service Medicare claims.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of incident cancer (new occurrence of a cancer diagnosis code in proximity to claims for cancer treatment, and no such diagnosis codes during a ≥1 year washout period) during 2014-19, who met additional requirements identifying them as at risk for one of four non-recommended or low value interventions: denosumab for castration sensitive prostate cancer, granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no evidence of superiority over paclitaxel, and a branded drug in settings where a generic or biosimilar version was available.Main outcome measuresReceipt of the non-recommended or low value drug for which the patient was at risk. The primary association of interest was the assigned oncologist's receipt of any general payments from the manufacturer of the corresponding non-recommended or low value drug (measured in Open Payments) within 365 days before the patient's index cancer date. The two modeling approaches used were general linear model controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, and general linear model with physician level indicator variables.ResultsOncologists were in receipt of industry payments for 2962 of 9799 patients (30.2%) at risk for non-recommended denosumab (median $63), 76 747 of 271 485 patients (28.3%) at risk for GCSF (median $60); 18 491 of 86 394 patients (21.4%) at risk for nab-paclitaxel (median $89), and 4170 of 13 386 patients (31.2%) at risk for branded drugs (median $156). The unadjusted proportion of patients who received non-recommended denosumab was 31.4% for those whose oncologist had not received payment and 49.5% for those whose oncologist had (prevalence difference 18.0%); the corresponding values for GCSF were 26.6% v 32.1% (5.5%), for nab-paclitaxel were 7.3% v 15.1% (7.8%), and for branded drugs were 88.3% v 83.5% (-4.8%). Controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (17.5% (95% confidence interval 15.3% to 19.7%)), GCSF (5.8% (5.4% to 6.1%)), and nab-paclitaxel (7.6% (7.1% to 8.1%)), but lower use of branded drugs (-4.6% (-5.8% to -3.3%)). In physician level indicator models, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (7.4% (2.5% to 12.2%)) and nab-paclitaxel (1.7% (0.9% to 2.5%)), but not with GCSF (0.4% (-0.3% to 1.1%)) or branded drugs (1.2% (-6.0 to 8.5%)).ConclusionsWithin some clinical scenarios, industry payments to physicians are associated with non-recommended and low value drugs. These findings raise quality of care concerns about the financial relationships between physicians and industry.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapidly increased spending on insulin is a major public health issue in the United States. Industry marketing might be one of the upstream determinants of physicians' prescription of long-acting insulin-the most commonly used and costly type of insulin, but the evidence is lacking. We therefore aimed to investigate the association between industry payments to physicians and subsequent prescriptions of long-acting insulin.Methods and findingsUsing the databases of Open Payments and Medicare Part D, we examined the association between the receipt of industry payments for long-acting insulin in 2016 and (1) the number of claims; (2) the costs paid for all claims; and (3) the costs per claim of long-acting insulin in 2017. We also examined the association between the receipt of payments and the change in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. We employed propensity score matching to adjust for the physician-level characteristics (sex, years in practice, specialty, and medical school attended). Among 145,587 eligible physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, 51,851 physicians received industry payments for long-acting insulin worth $22.3 million. In the propensity score-matched analysis including 102,590 physicians, we found that physicians who received the payments prescribed a higher number of claims (adjusted difference, 57.8; 95% CI, 55.8 to 59.7), higher costs for total claims (adjusted difference, +$22,111; 95% CI, $21,387 to $22,836), and higher costs per claim (adjusted difference, +$71.1; 95% CI, $69.0 to $73.2) of long-acting insulin, compared with physicians who did not receive the payments. The association was also found for changes in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. Limitations to our study include limited generalizability, confounding, and possible reverse causation.ConclusionsIndustry marketing payments to physicians for long-acting insulin were associated with the physicians' prescriptions and costs of long-acting insulin in the subsequent year. Future research is needed to assess whether policy interventions on physician-industry financial relationships will help to ensure appropriate prescriptions and limit overall costs of this essential drug for diabetes care.

Project description:Introduction and aimsExtramedical use of, and associated harms with pharmaceutical opioids are common. Analysis of coded ambulance clinical records provides a unique opportunity to examine a national population-level indicator of relative harms. This protocol describes an observational study with three aims: (1) to compare supply adjusted rates of pharmaceutical opioid-related ambulance attendances for buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, oxycodone, oxycodone-naloxone, morphine, pethidine, tramadol and tapentadol; (2) to compare presentation characteristics for these commonly used pharmaceutical opioids and (3) to describe the context surrounding ambulance presentations related to oxycodone, a widely used opioid with an established abuse liability, and tapentadol, a more recent 'atypical' opioid on the Australian market, with fewer studies that have directly examined signals of extramedical use.MethodTrained coders extract data from clinical records for ambulance presentations relating to extramedical use of commonly used pharmaceutical opioids. These data form the basis of a large, national database that captures alcohol-related and drug-related harms. Supply adjusted rates of presentations will be examined using Poisson regression. Multinomial logistic regression will be used to compare severity and other characteristics of attendances relating to different pharmaceutical opioids. Tapentadol-related and oxycodone-related cases will be qualitatively examined to understand the situationally specific contexts of the ambulance attendances outside of the characteristics captured in routinely coded variables.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval related to analysis of ambulance attendance data was obtained from the Eastern Health Human Research Ethics Committee (E122 08-09), with an amendment specific to the qualitative analysis. Findings will be submitted for peer review in 2019. The understanding of risk profiles in real-world settings is of international public health importance. The analysis and publication of findings from this national dataset of clinical records will provide one of the most nuanced analyses to date of relative harms across nine pharmaceutical opioids over a 6-year period.