Cargando…
Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis
OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics of pharmaceutical payments to healthcare and patient organisations in the four UK countries. Compare companies spending the most; types of organisations receiving payments and types of payments in the four countries. Measure the extent to which companies ta...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10069501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36990486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061591 |
_version_ | 1785018860230934528 |
---|---|
author | Rickard, Emily Carmel, Emma Ozieranski, Piotr |
author_facet | Rickard, Emily Carmel, Emma Ozieranski, Piotr |
author_sort | Rickard, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics of pharmaceutical payments to healthcare and patient organisations in the four UK countries. Compare companies spending the most; types of organisations receiving payments and types of payments in the four countries. Measure the extent to which companies target payments at the same recipients in each country and whether it differs depending on the type of recipient. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative and social network analysis. SETTING: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 100 donors (pharmaceutical companies) reporting payments to 4229 recipients (healthcare organisations and patient organisations) in 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each country: payment totals and distribution; average number of common recipients between companies; share of payments to organisations fulfilling different roles in the health ecosystem and payments for different activities. RESULTS: Companies prioritised different types of recipient and different types of activity in each country. There were significant differences in the distribution of payments across the four countries, even for similar types of recipients. Recipients in England and Wales received smaller individual payments than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Overall, targeting shared recipients occurred most frequently in England, but was also common in certain pockets of each country’s health ecosystem. We found evidence of reporting errors in Disclosure UK. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a strategic approach to payments tailored to countries’ policy and decision-making context, indicating there may be specific vulnerabilities to financial conflicts of interest at subnational level. Payment differences between countries may be occurring in other countries, particularly those with decentralised health systems and/or high levels of independence across its decision-making authorities. We call for a single database containing all recipient types, full location details and published with associated descriptive and network statistics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10069501 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100695012023-04-04 Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis Rickard, Emily Carmel, Emma Ozieranski, Piotr BMJ Open Health Policy OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics of pharmaceutical payments to healthcare and patient organisations in the four UK countries. Compare companies spending the most; types of organisations receiving payments and types of payments in the four countries. Measure the extent to which companies target payments at the same recipients in each country and whether it differs depending on the type of recipient. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative and social network analysis. SETTING: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 100 donors (pharmaceutical companies) reporting payments to 4229 recipients (healthcare organisations and patient organisations) in 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each country: payment totals and distribution; average number of common recipients between companies; share of payments to organisations fulfilling different roles in the health ecosystem and payments for different activities. RESULTS: Companies prioritised different types of recipient and different types of activity in each country. There were significant differences in the distribution of payments across the four countries, even for similar types of recipients. Recipients in England and Wales received smaller individual payments than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Overall, targeting shared recipients occurred most frequently in England, but was also common in certain pockets of each country’s health ecosystem. We found evidence of reporting errors in Disclosure UK. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a strategic approach to payments tailored to countries’ policy and decision-making context, indicating there may be specific vulnerabilities to financial conflicts of interest at subnational level. Payment differences between countries may be occurring in other countries, particularly those with decentralised health systems and/or high levels of independence across its decision-making authorities. We call for a single database containing all recipient types, full location details and published with associated descriptive and network statistics. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10069501/ /pubmed/36990486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061591 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Health Policy Rickard, Emily Carmel, Emma Ozieranski, Piotr Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
title | Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
title_full | Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
title_short | Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
title_sort | comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four uk countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis |
topic | Health Policy |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10069501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36990486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061591 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rickardemily comparingpharmaceuticalcompanypaymentsinthefourukcountriesacrosssectionalandsocialnetworkanalysis AT carmelemma comparingpharmaceuticalcompanypaymentsinthefourukcountriesacrosssectionalandsocialnetworkanalysis AT ozieranskipiotr comparingpharmaceuticalcompanypaymentsinthefourukcountriesacrosssectionalandsocialnetworkanalysis |