Literature DB >> 17374816

Pharmaceutical company payments to physicians: early experiences with disclosure laws in Vermont and Minnesota.

Joseph S Ross1, Josh E Lackner, Peter Lurie, Cary P Gross, Sidney Wolfe, Harlan M Krumholz.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Recent legislation in 5 states and the District of Columbia mandated state disclosure of payments made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies. In 2 of these states, Vermont and Minnesota, payment disclosures are publicly available.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the accessibility and quality of the data available in Vermont and Minnesota and to describe the prevalence and magnitude of disclosed payments. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available data from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2004, in Vermont and from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2004, in Minnesota. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accessibility and quality of disclosure data and the number, value, and type of payments of $100 or more to physicians.
RESULTS: Access to payment data required extensive negotiation with the Office of the Vermont Attorney General and manual photocopying of individual disclosure forms at Minnesota's State Board of Pharmacy. In Vermont, 61% of payments were not released to the public because pharmaceutical companies designated them as trade secrets and 75% of publicly disclosed payments were missing information necessary to identify the recipient. In Minnesota, 25% of companies reported in each of the 3 years. In Vermont, among 12,227 payments totaling $2.18 million publicly disclosed, there were 2416 payments of $100 or more to physicians; total, $1.01 million; median payment, $177 (range, $100-$20,000). In Minnesota, among 6946 payments totaling $30.96 million publicly disclosed, there were 6238 payments of $100 or more to physicians; total, $22.39 million; median payment, $1000 (range, $100-$922,239). Physician-specific analyses were possible only in Minnesota, identifying 2388 distinct physicians who received payment of $100 or more; median number of payments received, 1 (range, 1-88) and the median amount received, $1000 (range, $100-$1,178,203).
CONCLUSIONS: The Vermont and Minnesota laws requiring disclosure of payments do not provide easy access to payment information for the public and are of limited quality once accessed. However, substantial numbers of payments of $100 or more were made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17374816     DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.11.1216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  17 in total

1.  Effect of physician payment disclosure laws on prescribing.

Authors:  Genevieve Pham-Kanter; G Caleb Alexander; Kavita Nair
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-28

2.  Growth hormone and health policy.

Authors:  Leona Cuttler; J B Silvers
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 3.  Limiting the influence of pharmaceutical industry gifts on physicians: self-regulation or government intervention?

Authors:  David Grande
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-09-12       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Show us the money: lessons in transparency from state pharmaceutical marketing disclosure laws.

Authors:  Susan Chimonas; Natassia M Rozario; David J Rothman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-10-13       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Orthopaedic Surgeons Receive the Most Industry Payments to Physicians but Large Disparities are Seen in Sunshine Act Data.

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Matthew L Webb; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Daniel D Bohl; Bryce A Basques; Glenn S Russo; Vinay K Rathi; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Physician attitudes toward industry: a view across the specialties.

Authors:  Deborah Korenstein; Salomeh Keyhani; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-06

7.  Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-11-28       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Interventions to reduce corruption in the health sector.

Authors:  Rakhal Gaitonde; Andrew D Oxman; Peter O Okebukola; Gabriel Rada
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-08-16

Review 9.  Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review.

Authors:  Amy T Wang; Christopher P McCoy; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-18

10.  Mandatory disclosure of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals.

Authors:  Jane Robertson; Ray Moynihan; Emily Walkom; Lisa Bero; David Henry
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.