Abstract
ObjectivesTo 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.DesignCross-sectional comparative and social network analysis.SettingEngland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.Participants100 donors (pharmaceutical companies) reporting payments to 4229 recipients (healthcare organisations and patient organisations) in 2015.Main outcome measuresFor 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.ResultsCompanies 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.ConclusionsOur 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.
Funder
Vetenskapsrådet
Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare
Economic and Social Research Council
University of Bath
Reference94 articles.
1. Pharmaceutical company spending on research and development and promotion in canada, 2013-2016: a cohort analysis;Lexchin;J Pharm Policy Pract,2018
2. AHIP . New study: in the midst of COVID-19 crisis, 7 out of 10 big pharma companies spent more on sales and marketing than R&D. 2021. Available: https://www.ahip.org/news/articles/new-study-in-the-midst-of-covid-19-crisis-7-out-of-10-big-pharma-companies-spent-more-on-sales-and-marketing-than-r-d
3. Swanson A . Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research. In: The Washington post. 2015.
4. Mulinari S , Ozieranski P . 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. BMJ Open 2018;8:e023094. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023094
5. Rodwin MA . Conflict of interest in the pharmaceutical sector: A guide for public management. DePaul J Health Care L 2019;21.