Characteristics of physicians receiving large payments from pharmaceutical companies and the accuracy of their disclosures in publications: An observational study

BMC Medical Ethics (Impact Factor: 1.5). 09/2012; 13(1):24. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-24
Source: PubMed


Financial relationships between physicians and industry are extensive and public reporting of industry payments to physicians is now occurring. Our objectives were to describe physician recipients of large total payments from these seven companies, and to examine discrepancies between these payments and conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in authors’ concurrent publications.

The investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, compiled the Dollars for Docs database of payments to individuals from publically available data from seven US pharmaceutical companies during the period 2009 to 2010. We examined the cohort of 373 physicians in this database who each received USD $100,000 or more in the reporting period 2009 to 2010.

These physicians received a total of $52,600,624 during this period (mean payment per physician $141,020). The predominant specialties were internal medicine and psychiatry. 147 of these physicians authored a total of 134 publications in the first quarter of 2011 and 77% (103) of these publications provided a COI disclosure. 69% of the 103 publications did not contain disclosures of the payment listed in the Dollars for Docs database.

With increased public reporting of industry payments to physicians, it is apparent that large sums are being paid for services such as consulting and peer education. In over two-thirds of publications where COI disclosures were provided, the disclosures by physician authors did not include industry payments that were documented in the Dollars for Docs database.


Available from: Lauren Ogden, Oct 08, 2014
  • Source
    • "However, such strategies are often inadequate [9], e.g. many journals do not include disclosure statements in their articles or have only started recently, response rates in surveys were often low, and authors often do not to disclose conflicts in their scientific publications [26,27]. A few studies have used other sources such as US patent databases [22,28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Conflicts of interest affect recommendations in clinical guidelines and disclosure of such conflicts is important. However, not all conflicts of interest are disclosed. Using a public available disclosure list we determined the prevalence and underreporting of conflicts of interest among authors of clinical guidelines on drug treatments. Methods We included up to five guidelines published from July 2010 to March 2012 from each Danish clinical specialty society. Using the disclosure list of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority, we identified author conflicts of interest and compared them with the disclosures in the guidelines. For each guideline we extracted methodological characteristics of guideline development. Results Forty-five guidelines from 14 specialty societies were included. Of 254 authors, 135 (53%) had conflicts of interest, corresponding to 43 of the 45 guidelines (96%) having one or more authors with a conflict of interest. Only one of the 45 guidelines (2%) disclosed author conflicts of interest. The most common type of conflict of interest (83 of the 135) was being a consultant, an advisory board member or a company employee. Only 10 guidelines (22%) described the methods used for guideline development, 27 (60%) used references in the text and 11 (24%) graded the types of evidence. Conclusions Conflicts of interest were common, but disclosures were very rare. Most guidelines did not describe how they were developed and many did not describe the evidence behind specific recommendations. Publicly available disclosure lists may assist guideline issuing bodies in ensuring that all conflicts are disclosed.
    BMC Medical Ethics 05/2013; 14(1):19. DOI:10.1186/1472-6939-14-19 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major policies, regulations, and practice patterns related to interventional pain management are dependent on Medicare policies which include national coverage policies - national coverage determinations (NCDs), and local coverage policies - local coverage determinations (LCDs). The NCDs are Medicare coverage policies issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The process used by the CMS in deciding what is and what is not medically necessary is lengthy, involving a review of evidence-based literature on the subject, expert opinion, and public comments. In contrast, LCDs are rules and Medicare coverage that are issued by regional contractors and fiscal intermediaries when an NCD has not addressed the policy at issue. The evidence utilized in preparing LCDs includes the highest level of evidence which is based on published authoritative evidence derived from definitive randomized clinical trials or other definitive studies, and general acceptance by the medical community (standard of practice), as supported by sound medical evidence. In addition, the intervention must be safe and effective and appropriate including duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service in terms of whether it is furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function. In addition, the safe and effective provision includes that service must be furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition, ordered and furnished by qualified personnel, the service must meet, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need, and be at least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative. The LCDs are prepared with literature review, state medical societies, and carrier advisory committees (CACs) of which interventional pain management is a member. The LCDs may be appealed by beneficiaries. The NCDs are prepared by the CMS following a request for a national coverage decision after an appropriate national coverage request along with a draft decision memorandum, and public comments. After the request, the staff review, external technology assessment, Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee (MedCAC) assessment, public comments, a draft decision memorandum may be posted which will be followed by a final decision and implementation instructions. This decision may be appealed to the department appeals board, but may be difficult to reverse. This manuscript describes NCDs and LCDs and the process of development, their development, issues related to the development, and finally their relation to interventional pain management.
    Pain physician 11/2012; 16(3):E145-E180. · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper explains how the current architecture of the pharmaceutical markets has created a misalignment of financial incentives and public health that is a central cause of harmful practices. It explores three possible solutions to address that misalignment: taxes, increased financial penalties, and drug pricing based on value. Each proposal could help to partly realign financial incentives and public health. However, because of the limits of each proposal, there is no easy solution to fixing the problem of financial incentives.
    The Journal of Law Medicine &amp Ethics 09/2013; 41(3):571-580. DOI:10.1111/jlme.12066 · 1.10 Impact Factor
Show more