Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Spillover effects of mandatory hip and knee replacement surgery bundles in medicare.

BACKGROUND: Medicare used the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model to mandate that hospitals in certain health care markets accept bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement surgery. CJR has reduced spending with stable quality as intended among Medicare fee-for-service patients, but benefits could "spill over" to individuals insured through private health plans. Definitive evidence of spillovers remains lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between CJR participation and changes in outcomes among privately insured individuals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We used 2013-2017 Health Care Cost Institute claims for 418,016 privately insured individuals undergoing joint replacement in 75 CJR and 121 Non-CJR markets. Multivariable generalized linear models with hospital and market random effects and time fixed effects were used to analyze the association between CJR participation and changes in outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode spending, discharge to institutional post-acute care, and quality (e.g., surgical complications, readmissions). RESULTS: Patients in CJR and Non-CJR markets did not differ in total episode spending (difference of -$157, 95% CI -$1043 to $728, p = 0.73) or discharge to institutional post-acute care (difference of -1.1%, 95% CI -3.2%-1.0%, p = 0.31). Similarly, patients in the two groups did not differ in quality or other utilization outcomes. Findings were generally similar in stratified and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of evidence of cost or utilization spillovers from CJR to privately insured individuals. There may be limits in the ability of certain value-based payment reforms to drive broad changes in care delivery and patient outcomes.