Disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the UK

analysis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Disclosure UK database, 2015 and 2016 cohorts

Shai Mulinari, Piotr Ozieranski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.

RESULTS: Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%-48% in 2015 and 46%-30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.

CONCLUSIONS: Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere023094
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalBMJ Open
Volume8
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Oct 2018

Keywords

  • United Kingdom
  • conflict of Interest
  • disclosure
  • pharmaceutical industry
  • self-regulation
  • transparency

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{c58d00c7830c4610ab2f1f714c553a6d,
title = "Disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the UK: analysis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Disclosure UK database, 2015 and 2016 cohorts",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.RESULTS: Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3{\%}. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50{\%} of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70{\%}, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5{\%} (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9{\%}) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5{\%} (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2{\%}) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7{\%}, with 25{\%} of companies reporting less than 38.6{\%}. We found little agreement (62{\%}-48{\%} in 2015 and 46{\%}-30{\%} in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.CONCLUSIONS: Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.",
keywords = "United Kingdom, conflict of Interest, disclosure, pharmaceutical industry, self-regulation, transparency",
author = "Shai Mulinari and Piotr Ozieranski",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023094",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the UK

T2 - analysis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Disclosure UK database, 2015 and 2016 cohorts

AU - Mulinari, Shai

AU - Ozieranski, Piotr

PY - 2018/10/21

Y1 - 2018/10/21

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.RESULTS: Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%-48% in 2015 and 46%-30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.CONCLUSIONS: Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.RESULTS: Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%-48% in 2015 and 46%-30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.CONCLUSIONS: Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.

KW - United Kingdom

KW - conflict of Interest

KW - disclosure

KW - pharmaceutical industry

KW - self-regulation

KW - transparency

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055075133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023094

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023094

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 10

M1 - e023094

ER -