Mandatory disclosure of all pharmaceutical and medical device companies’ payments to healthcare providers: learning from the USA

Wolfe, Sidney M.

doi:10.1136/dtb.2021.000061

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the evidence of the limited impact of sunshine legislation on reducing FCOIs or encouraging their understanding by the public [ 23 ], any new legislation should be complemented by educational campaigns enhancing the understanding and scrutiny of disclosure rules , practices and data [ 180 ]. Any sunshine legislation should be integrated – including via shared databases – with FCOI evaluation undertaken by HCOs such as hospitals, commissioning bodies, regulators, and professional organisations.…”

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Self-regulation of payment disclosure by pharmaceutical industry trade groups is a major global approach to increasing transparency of financial relationships between drug companies and healthcare professionals and organisations. Nevertheless, little is known about the relative strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation across countries, especially beyond Europe. To address this gap in research and stimulate international policy learning, we compare the UK and Japan, the likely strongest cases of self-regulation of payment disclosure in Europe and Asia, across three dimensions of transparency: disclosure rules, practices, and data. Results The UK and Japanese self-regulation of payment disclosure had shared as well unique strengths and weaknesses. The UK and Japanese pharmaceutical industry trade groups declared transparency as the primary goal of payment disclosure, without, however, explaining the link between the two. The rules of payment disclosure in each country provided more insight into some payments but not others. Both trade groups did not reveal the recipients of certain payments by default, and the UK trade group also made the disclosure of some payments conditional on recipient consent. Drug company disclosure practices were more transparent in the UK, allowing for greater availability and accessibility of payment data and insight into underreporting or misreporting of payments by companies. Nevertheless, the share of payments made to named recipients was three times higher in Japan than in the UK, indicating higher transparency of disclosure data. Conclusions The UK and Japan performed differently across the three dimensions of transparency, suggesting that any comprehensive analysis of self-regulation of payment disclosure must triangulate analysis of disclosure rules, practices, and data. We found limited evidence to support key claims regarding the strengths of self-regulation, while often finding it inferior to public regulation of payment disclosure. We suggest how the self-regulation of payment disclosure in each country can be enhanced and, in the long run, replaced by public regulation to strengthen the industry’s accountability to the public.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to identify and recognise the impact pharmaceutical company payments have on institutions and organisations 3. Nevertheless, as others have noted, it is not enough to disclose financial conflicts of interest, ‘the ultimate solution is to eliminate all industry relationships from the practice of medicine’ 4…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical company payments to NHS trusts

2024

DTB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as others have pointed out, transparency of payments made to healthcare professionals ‘is necessary but not sufficient’ 4 5. An article by Lexchin and Fugh-Berman concluded that ‘Declaring conflicts is only the first step in dealing with this problem…The ultimate solution is to eliminate all industry relationships from the practice of medicine.’5…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial conflicts of interest among clinical guideline authors

2023

DTB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mandatory disclosure of all pharmaceutical and medical device companies’ payments to healthcare providers: learning from the USA

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

Pharmaceutical company payments to NHS trusts

Financial conflicts of interest among clinical guideline authors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About