Industry payments to Australian medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available disclosures.

BACKGROUND: Payments to medical oncologists and clinical haematologists can negatively affect prescribing practice, but the extent of payments to these specialists is unknown in Australia. AIMS: To analyse the extent of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to Australian cancer physicians as reported during the first collated period of the Disclosure Australia website. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of payments made from November 2018 to April 2019, using a file downloaded from the Disclosure Australia website. We checked the names of listed medical practitioners against Medical Board of Australia records to assign specialties. The number of medical oncologists, clinical haematologists, other specialist physicians and non-specialist physician medical practitioners was calculated, along with the payments to each of these groups. RESULTS: A total of A$7 332 407 was paid to 2775 medical practitioners. Of these, 236 were medical oncologists, 189 were haematologists and 1145 were other specialist physicians. This represents 31.7% of Australian medical oncologists and 30.9% of Australian haematologists, compared with 11.7% of all other specialist physicians and 1.1% of all other non-specialist physician medical practitioners. Medical oncologists received significantly higher payments (median A$2131.26) than other specialist physicians (median A$1376.00, 2-tailed P = 0.004) and other medical practitioners (median A$709.00, 2-tailed P < 0.001), while haematologists received significantly higher payments (median A$1519.95) than other medical practitioners (2-tailed P < 0.001), but similar payments to other specialist physicians (2-tailed P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Australian cancer physicians receive payments at a higher proportional frequency and in greater dollar amounts than other specialist physicians and other medical practitioners in general.

Expanding disease definitions in guidelines and expert panel ties to industry: a cross-sectional study of common conditions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Financial ties between health professionals and industry may unduly influence professional judgments and some researchers have suggested that widening disease definitions may be one driver of over-diagnosis, bringing potentially unnecessary labeling and harm. We aimed to identify guidelines in which disease definitions were changed, to assess whether any proposed changes would increase the numbers of individuals considered to have the disease, whether potential harms of expanding disease definitions were investigated, and the extent of members' industry ties. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a cross-sectional study of the most recent publication between 2000 and 2013 from national and international guideline panels making decisions about definitions or diagnostic criteria for common conditions in the United States. We assessed whether proposed changes widened or narrowed disease definitions, rationales offered, mention of potential harms of those changes, and the nature and extent of disclosed ties between members and pharmaceutical or device companies. Of 16 publications on 14 common conditions, ten proposed changes widening and one narrowing definitions. For five, impact was unclear. Widening fell into three categories: creating "pre-disease"; lowering diagnostic thresholds; and proposing earlier or different diagnostic methods. Rationales included standardising diagnostic criteria and new evidence about risks for people previously considered to not have the disease. No publication included rigorous assessment of potential harms of proposed changes. Among 14 panels with disclosures, the average proportion of members with industry ties was 75%. Twelve were chaired by people with ties. For members with ties, the median number of companies to which they had ties was seven. Companies with ties to the highest proportions of members were active in the relevant therapeutic area. Limitations arise from reliance on only disclosed ties, and exclusion of conditions too broad to enable analysis of single panel publications. CONCLUSIONS: For the common conditions studied, a majority of panels proposed changes to disease definitions that increased the number of individuals considered to have the disease, none reported rigorous assessment of potential harms of that widening, and most had a majority of members disclosing financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.