The impact of bank's engagement in shadow banking activities on bank's sustainability: Evidence from Chinese commercial banks.

The economic and environmental consequences of bad banking practices have aroused much attention. In China, banks are at the center of shadow banking activities through which they avoid regulation and support environmentally unfriendly businesses such as fossil fuel companies and other high-pollution enterprises. In this paper, we study the impact of bank's engagement in shadow banking activities on its sustainability by using annual panel data of Chinese commercial banks. The result shows that bank's engagement in shadow banking activities has a negative impact on its sustainability and the negative impact of bank's engagement in shadow banking activities is more pronounced for city commercial banks and unlisted banks which are less regulated and lack corporate social responsibility (CSR). Furthermore, we explore the underlying mechanism of our findings and prove that bank's sustainability is impeded because it transforms high-risk loan into shadow banking activities which are less regulated. Finally, by using difference-in-difference (DiD) approach, we find that bank's sustainability improved after the financial regulation on shadow banking activities. Our research provides empirical evidence that the financial regulation on bad banking practices is beneficial for bank's sustainability.

Accuracy of Disclosed Financial Relationships between Radiologists and Industry at the 2018 RSNA Annual Meeting.

Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Grant in this issue.

The Commercial Determinants of Three Contemporary National Crises: How Corporate Practices Intersect With the COVID-19 Pandemic, Economic Downturn, and Racial Inequity.

Policy Points  The United States finds itself in the middle of an unprecedented combination of crises: a global pandemic, economic crisis, and unprecedented civic responses to structural racism.  While public sector responses to these crises have faced much justified criticism, the commercial determinants of these crises have not been sufficiently examined.  In this commentary we examine the nature of the contributions of such actors to the conditions that underpin these crises in the United States through their market and nonmarket activities.  On the basis of this analysis, we make recommendations on the role of governance and civil society in relation to such commercial actors in a post-COVID-19 world.

Our Postpandemic World: What Will It Take to Build a Better Future for People and Planet?

Policy Points Despite the pandemic's ongoing devastating impacts, it also offers the opportunity and lessons for building a better, fairer, and sustainable world. Transformational change will require new ways of working, challenging powerful individuals and industries who worsened the crisis, will act to exploit it for personal gain, and will work to ensure that the future aligns with their interests. A flourishing world needs strong and equitable structures and systems, including strengthened democratic, research, and educational institutions, supported by ideas and discourses that are free of opaque and conflicted influence and that challenge the status quo and inequitable distribution of power.

New York State Creates New Governance of Commercial Gestational Surrogacy.

United States law recognizes adult reproductive liberty and many states view surrogacy services through that lens. During the COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, New York State enacted the Child-Parent Surrogacy Act (CPSA) into law, after feminists and their allies had caused its defeat in 2019. Just before approval of the CPSA, a group of legislators introduced the Alternative Surrogacy Bill (ASB). This article is a case study that examines how the CPSA and not the ASB became law, examining surrogate rights, the best interests of the child, and the ethical issues related to adult donor-conceived and surrogacy born children's rights to information about their ancestry.

Managing Conflicts and Maximizing Transparency in Industry-Funded Research.

BACKGROUND: Industry funding of research comes with important conflicts of interest, especially when research findings have financial implications for funders. When considering industry funding, academic investigators seek ways to mitigate and manage conflict to ensure integrity of research design, analysis, interpretation, and to protect researchers' and their institutions' credibility. This qualitative study's purpose was to conduct semi-structured interviews with expert stakeholders to gain insight into industry funding of research focused on nutrition and obesity, and determine the feasibility of developing a transparent process using an advisory board to help govern industry funding and manage conflict. METHODS: We conducted seven semi-structured interviews with a purposive group of expert stakeholders representing varied perspectives. We distributed a summary of the advisory board concept to interviewees; developed and used a 16-question interview guide; and analyzed the interviews using open coding, manifest content analysis, axial coding, and code list reviews to identify and refine themes. RESULTS: Most interviewees agreed that managing conflicts between industry funders and researchers was possible but difficult. They believed a carefully constructed advisory board empowered with specific responsibilities could help facilitate this process. They posited that strict guidelines are required to protect research quality and reporting, researcher(s)' and research institution(s)' reputations, and subsequent policy influenced by the research findings. They recommended specific guidelines and a framework for developing and administering the advisory board. CONCLUSIONS: A carefully constructed advisory board empowered with specific responsibilities could be useful to manage actual and perceived conflicts of interest, and increase transparency of research processes, funding, and results for industry-funded research. Stricter guidelines than those previously proposed in existing frameworks are needed to instill confidence in industry-funded nutrition and obesity research. A possible next step could include a pilot study of the advisory board concept to determine specific requirements for execution and to develop rigorous guidelines.

Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Professional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database. POPULATION: 328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships. RESULTS: 235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m-predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Financial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.

Financial conflicts of interest in dentistry: how much money do providers receive from industry?

The purpose of this retrospective, observational study was to characterize the amounts and types of healthcare industry payments made to dental care providers in 2017. Data were collected from the Open Payments database of the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dentists were classified as providing general services or services in 1 of 9 specialties recognized by the American Dental Association (prior to the recognition of dental anesthesiology). The value and nature of each payment made to providers were recorded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Distributions across dental specialties were compared with analyses of variance. In 2017, US dentists received a total of 321,627 industry payments totaling $110,750,601. The most money was spent on service fees ($37,333,870; 33.7%), followed by consulting fees ($12,983,013; 11.7%) and royalties and licenses ($11,426,776; 10.3%). Each provider received a median payment of $63.27 (range, $0.21-$22,931,027.12) spread over 2 payments (range, 1-285). Participation rates among dental specialists ranged from 19% to 62%, and the highest rates were found among orthodontists (61.8%), oral and maxillofacial surgeons (55.7%), and periodontists (54.6%). The greatest median payments per provider were made to specialists in oral and maxillofacial radiology ($187.52), periodontics ($127.31), and oral and maxillofacial surgery ($123.39). The mean number (P < 0.01) and amount of payments (P < 0.01) per provider differed significantly across all specialties. The majority of dentists in this study received less than $200; however, the distribution of payments was positively skewed by a few top earners. The effect of these payments on clinical practice remains to be determined.

Assessing the domino effect: Female physician industry payments fall short, parallel gender inequalities in medicine.

BACKGROUND: Physician-industry relationships have been complex in modern medicine. Since large proportions of research, education and consulting are industry-backed, this is an important area to consider when examining gender inequality in medicine. METHODS: The Open Payments Program (OPP) database from August 2013 to December 2016 was analyzed. In order to identify physicians' genders, the OPP was matched with the National Provider Index dataset. Descriptive statistics of payments to female compared to male surgeons were obtained and stratified by payment type, subspecialty, geographic location and year. RESULTS: 3,925,707 transactions to 136,845 physicians were analyzed. Of them, 31,297 physicians were surgeons with an average payment per provider of $131,252 to male surgeons compared to $62,101 to female surgeons. Significantly fewer women received consultant, royalty/licensure, ownership and speaker payments. However, women received a higher average amount per surgeon compared to their male counterparts within research payments. Overall payments to women trended upwards over time. CONCLUSION: Gender inequality still exists in medicine, and in industry-physician payments. Industry should increasingly consider engaging women in consultancies, speaking engagements, and research.

The Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Reported by Plastic Surgeons and Industry.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze the frequency and nature of self-reported conflict-of-interest disclosures in the plastic surgery literature and to compare these findings to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act database. METHODS: All articles published from August of 2013 through December of 2013 in four major plastic surgery journals were analyzed. For every publication, the conflict-of-interest disclosure statement for each investigator was reviewed. These statements were then compared to transactions of value for each investigator as reported by biomedical companies in the Sunshine Act database. An analysis was performed to identify and characterize specific factors associated with conflict-of-interest disclosures. RESULTS: A total of 1002 independent investigators/authors were identified. Of these, 90 investigators (9 percent) self-reported a conflict of interest. In contrast, a total of 428 authors (42.7 percent) were found to have received transactions of value from a biomedical company according to the Sunshine Act database. Conversely, a total of 22 authors (2.2 percent) self-reported a conflict of interest but were not found to have received transactions of value in the Sunshine Act database. Our analysis found that (1) academic investigators, (2) transactions of value in excess of $500, and (3) publishing articles related to the sponsoring biomedical company were all statistically associated with reporting conflicts of interest (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance exists between investigator/authors self-reporting in scientific journals and the government-mandated reporting of conflicts of interest by industry. Factors associated with conflict-of-interest disclosure include academic status, transaction amount, and article content related to the sponsoring biomedical company.

Industry interests in gambling research: Lessons learned from other forms of hazardous consumption.

Research indicates that the evidential bases for many harm reduction policies targeting hazardous consumptions (including tobacco, alcohol and gambling) have been distorted by commercial industries that derive revenue from such commodities. These distortions are best illustrated by research on tobacco and alcohol, which indicates similar tactics used by industries to determine favourable policy environments through engineering of evidence, among other approaches. Although there is concern that gambling research is similarly vulnerable to commercial interests, the relevant literature lags far behind other fields and the aim of this paper is to increase familiarity with tactics used by industries for influencing research. It summarises the conceptual and empirical bases for expecting conflicts between goals of public health and companies that profit from hazardous consumptions. It also summarises evidence describing practices deployed by tobacco corporations, which include third-party techniques and the selective funding of research to manufacture doubt and deflect attention away from the consequences of smoking. It then reviews both early and emerging evidence indicating similar strategies used by alcohol industry, and uses this literature to view practices of the gambling industry. It argues that parallels regarding selective funding of research and third-party techniques provide grounds for strong concern about commercial influences on gambling research, and implementation of precautionary approaches to management of vested interests.