Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies.DesignCross sectional study.SettingProfessional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database.Population328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians.Main outcome measuresProportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships.Results235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m—predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology.ConclusionsFinancial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.

Medicine and Phlebolymphology: Time to Change?

“…In fact, it is acknowledged that a few health systems may have a higher degree of connection with industry support, due to a series of purposes, such as the scientific research advancement and educational projects. Regrettably, medical association leaders may exhibit a significant tie to industries; in a recent study, this linkage was in the range of 130 million USD between 2017 and 2019 for 235 (80%) out of the 293 investigated USA chief medical leaders [ 171 ]. This relevant relationship may somehow undermine the independence of biomedical science, “adding weight to calls for policy reform”, as the authors state.…”

Health Care Crisis Unabated: A Review of Recent Data on Health Care in the United States

“…Median amounts received per leader varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association to $518,000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 34 COVID-19 mortality rates were significantly lower in unionized nursing homes in New York State than in nonunion facilities: 3.72% in unionized facilities compared to 5.53% in nonunion ones. Unionized facilities had a 42% lower infection rate among residents and were more likely to have N95 masks and eye shields for staff.…”

“…Median amounts received per leader varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association to $518,000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 34…”

A Ray of Sunshine: Transparency in Physician-Industry Relationships Is Not Enough

“…14 Other analyses have examined payments to contributors to clinical guidelines, 15,16 medical journal editors, 17 , 1 8 and leaders of professional organizations. 19 The combination of data from the Open Payments database and prescribing information from Medicare Part D revealed that industry gifts, including meals and speaking, consulting, and other financial opportunities, influence physicians' therapeutic choices. Meals and other small gifts increased prescriptions for targeted drugs, compared to competing drugs, in four different drug classes.…”