Cargando…

Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions

The slow reaction of French authorities to the so-called Mediator® saga in 2009 in France led to investigations that questioned the way conflicts of interest are reported. France implemented the Loi Bertrand (‘Bertrand Law’) in May 2013, known as the ‘French Sunshine Act’, with the aim of specifying...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frybourg, Sandrine, Remuzat, Cécile, Kornfeld, Åsa, Toumi, Mondher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Routledge 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785249
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v3.25682
_version_ 1783323857291051008
author Frybourg, Sandrine
Remuzat, Cécile
Kornfeld, Åsa
Toumi, Mondher
author_facet Frybourg, Sandrine
Remuzat, Cécile
Kornfeld, Åsa
Toumi, Mondher
author_sort Frybourg, Sandrine
collection PubMed
description The slow reaction of French authorities to the so-called Mediator® saga in 2009 in France led to investigations that questioned the way conflicts of interest are reported. France implemented the Loi Bertrand (‘Bertrand Law’) in May 2013, known as the ‘French Sunshine Act’, with the aim of specifying the scope of disclosure obligations. This policy research reviewed the Loi Bertrand and reported case law from the French Council of State (COS) related to conflicts of interest in French Health technology assessment (HTA) opinion. The Loi Bertrand requires the publication of most of the agreements concluded between health-care professionals and companies and covers a vast range of health products. Commercial sales agreements of goods and services concluded between manufacturers and health-care professionals are a strong exception to this disclosure obligation. Six cases examined by the COS were analyzed, most of them related to the publication of guidelines or the removal of products from the list of reimbursed drugs and devices. These cases have been reviewed, as well as the impact of the ruling on reimbursement decisions. Four cases led to suspension or invalidation of decisions based on the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) recommendations due to conflicts of interest. In the two other cases, the HAS provided post hoc declarations of interest when required by the COS, and the COS considered the conflicts of interest as irrelevant for the decision. It appears that the COS based its decisions on two main criteria: the acknowledgement of negative conflicts of interest (a link with competitors) and the absence of declarations of conflicts of interest, which have to be presented when required by legal authorities irrespective of when they were completed (even posterior to the HAS opinion). However, the number of cases that have been decided against the HAS remains very limited with respect to the volume of assessments performed yearly. The strengthening of the regulation on declarations of interest might lead to more transparency but also to more cases decided by the COS. A new press investigation (in March 2015) related to alleged cases of conflict of interests led policy makers to amend the Bertrand Law in April 2015 and require the disclosure of amounts paid to health-care professionals by the industry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5956286
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Routledge
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59562862018-05-21 Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions Frybourg, Sandrine Remuzat, Cécile Kornfeld, Åsa Toumi, Mondher J Mark Access Health Policy Debate Pieces The slow reaction of French authorities to the so-called Mediator® saga in 2009 in France led to investigations that questioned the way conflicts of interest are reported. France implemented the Loi Bertrand (‘Bertrand Law’) in May 2013, known as the ‘French Sunshine Act’, with the aim of specifying the scope of disclosure obligations. This policy research reviewed the Loi Bertrand and reported case law from the French Council of State (COS) related to conflicts of interest in French Health technology assessment (HTA) opinion. The Loi Bertrand requires the publication of most of the agreements concluded between health-care professionals and companies and covers a vast range of health products. Commercial sales agreements of goods and services concluded between manufacturers and health-care professionals are a strong exception to this disclosure obligation. Six cases examined by the COS were analyzed, most of them related to the publication of guidelines or the removal of products from the list of reimbursed drugs and devices. These cases have been reviewed, as well as the impact of the ruling on reimbursement decisions. Four cases led to suspension or invalidation of decisions based on the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) recommendations due to conflicts of interest. In the two other cases, the HAS provided post hoc declarations of interest when required by the COS, and the COS considered the conflicts of interest as irrelevant for the decision. It appears that the COS based its decisions on two main criteria: the acknowledgement of negative conflicts of interest (a link with competitors) and the absence of declarations of conflicts of interest, which have to be presented when required by legal authorities irrespective of when they were completed (even posterior to the HAS opinion). However, the number of cases that have been decided against the HAS remains very limited with respect to the volume of assessments performed yearly. The strengthening of the regulation on declarations of interest might lead to more transparency but also to more cases decided by the COS. A new press investigation (in March 2015) related to alleged cases of conflict of interests led policy makers to amend the Bertrand Law in April 2015 and require the disclosure of amounts paid to health-care professionals by the industry. Routledge 2015-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5956286/ /pubmed/29785249 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v3.25682 Text en © 2015 Sandrine Frybourg et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Debate Pieces
Frybourg, Sandrine
Remuzat, Cécile
Kornfeld, Åsa
Toumi, Mondher
Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions
title Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions
title_full Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions
title_fullStr Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions
title_full_unstemmed Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions
title_short Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions
title_sort conflict of interest in health technology assessment decisions: case law in france and impact on reimbursement decisions
topic Debate Pieces
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785249
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v3.25682
work_keys_str_mv AT frybourgsandrine conflictofinterestinhealthtechnologyassessmentdecisionscaselawinfranceandimpactonreimbursementdecisions
AT remuzatcecile conflictofinterestinhealthtechnologyassessmentdecisionscaselawinfranceandimpactonreimbursementdecisions
AT kornfeldasa conflictofinterestinhealthtechnologyassessmentdecisionscaselawinfranceandimpactonreimbursementdecisions
AT toumimondher conflictofinterestinhealthtechnologyassessmentdecisionscaselawinfranceandimpactonreimbursementdecisions