Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

How Labor Costs Affect Innovation Output in Pharmaceutical Companies: Evidence from China.

Existing literature generally suggests that rising labor costs lead to the substitution of capital for labor, prompting firms to save on labor costs through technological upgrades. However, as a typical human capital-intensive industry, the pharmaceutical sector finds it challenging to replace labor with capital through the introduction of advanced equipment. Therefore, compared to other industries, the pharmaceutical sector faces greater adverse impacts. Research on how pharmaceutical R&D behavior is influenced by labor costs is scarce. This paper analyzes the triple effects of rising labor costs on corporate innovation from the perspectives of human capital, physical capital, and financial capital. Based on empirical research using data from Chinese listed companies, we found that an increase in labor costs promotes innovation output in the pharmaceutical sector, but this effect is more pronounced in other sectors. Financing constraints play a negative role on corporate innovation in the pharmaceutical sector, while it is not significant in the other sectors. Factor substitution play a positive effect on corporate innovation in the other sectors, which is invalid in the pharmaceutical sector. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the unique mechanisms by which labor costs impact innovation activities in the pharmaceutical industry.

Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.

This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.

The cost of influence: How gifts to physicians shape prescriptions and drug costs.

This paper investigates the influence of gifts - monetary and in-kind payments - from drug firms to US physicians on prescription behavior and drug costs. Using causal models and machine learning, we estimate physicians' heterogeneous responses to payments on antidiabetic prescriptions. We find that payments lead to increased prescription of brand drugs, resulting in a cost rise of $23 per dollar value of transfer received. Paid physicians show higher responses when they treat higher proportions of patients receiving a government-funded low-income subsidy that lowers out-of-pocket drug costs. We estimate that introducing a national gift ban would reduce diabetes drug costs by 2%.

Pharmaceutical company payments to NHS trusts.

Overview of: Ozieranski P, Saghy E, Mulinari S. Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: a four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database. PLoS One 2023;18:e0290022.

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests.

BACKGROUND: The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma. ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population. CONCLUSIONS: The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

A primer on brand-name prescription drug contracting.

Prescription drug contracting in the United States has evolved over decades from discounts provided to members of early health maintenance organization plans to rebate contracts to more complex value-based purchasing arrangements. This primer describes the history of contracting between pharmaceutical manufacturers and managed care pharmacy organizations and details the various contracting methods used today.

Profits over care? An analysis of the relationship between corporate capitalism in the healthcare industry and cancer mortality in the United States.

The characteristic features of 21st-century corporate capitalism - monopoly and financialization - are increasingly being recognized by public health scholars as undermining the foundations of human health. While the "vectors" through which this is occurring are well known - poverty, inequality, climate change among others - locating the root cause of this process in the nature and institutions of contemporary capitalism is relatively new. Researchers have been somewhat slow to study the relationship between contemporary capitalism and human health. In this paper, we focus on one of the leading causes of death in the United States; cancer, and empirically estimate the relationship between various measures of financialization and monopoly in the US healthcare system and cancer mortality. The measures we focus on are for the hospital industry, the health insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. Using a fixed effects model with different specifications and control variables, our analysis is at the state level for the years 2012-2019. These variables include data on population demographic controls, social and economic factors, and health behavior and clinical care. We compare Medicaid expansion states with non-Medicaid expansion states to investigate variations in state-level funded health insurance coverage. The results show a statistically significant positive correlation between the HHI index in the individual healthcare market and cancer mortality and the opioid dispensing rate and cancer mortality.

Global representativeness and impact of funding sources in cost-effectiveness research on systemic therapies for advanced breast cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the most incident tumor and, consequently, any new intervention can potentially promote a considerable budget impact if incorporated. Cost-effectiveness (CE) studies assist in the decision-making process but may be influenced by the country's perspective of analysis and pharmaceutical industry funding. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1st, 2012 to July 8th, 2022 was conducted to identify CE studies of tumor-targeted systemic-therapies for advanced BC. Articles without incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculations were excluded. We extracted information on the country and class of drug studied, comparator type, authors' conflicts of interest (COI), pharmaceutical industry funding, and authors' conclusions. RESULTS: 71 studies comprising 204 CE assessments were included. The majority of studies were from the United States and Canada (44%), Asia (32%) and Europe (20%). Only 8% were from Latin America and none from Africa. 31% had pharmaceutical industry funding. The most studied drug classes were cyclin-dependent-kinase inhibitors (29%), anti-HER2 therapy (23%), anti-PD(L)1 (11%) and hormone therapy (11%). Overall, 34% of CE assessments had favorable conclusions. Pharmaceutical industry-funded articles had a higher proportion of at least one favorable conclusion (82% vs. 24%, p-value<0.001), European countries analyzed (45% vs. 9%, p-value = 0.003), and CE assessments with same class drug comparators (56% vs. 33%, p-value = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer CE literature scarcely represents low-and-middle-income countries' perspectives and is influenced by pharmaceutical industry funding which targets European countries', frequently utilizes comparisons within same-drug class, and is more likely to have favorable conclusions.

Industry Payments to US Physicians by Specialty and Product Type.

This study examines the distribution of payments within and across specialties and the medical products associated with the largest total payments.

Harmonizing regulatory market approval of products with high safety requirements: Evidence from the European pharmaceutical market.

We causally analyzed whether being a member of the European Union (EU) and having access to a centralized marketing authorization procedure (centralized procedure [CP]) affects availability and time to launch of new pharmaceuticals. We employed multiple difference-in-differences models, exploiting the eastern enlargement of the EU as well as changes in the indications that fall within the compulsory or voluntary scope of the CP. Results showed that countries experienced a mean decrease in launch delay of 10.9 months (p = 0.004) after joining the EU. Effects were higher among pharmaceuticals that belong to indications that might voluntarily participate in the CP but are not obliged to. These are often financially less attractive to manufacturers than pharmaceuticals within the compulsory scope. Availability of new pharmaceuticals launched remained unaffected. We found signs that the magnitude of the country-specific effect of centralized marketing authorization on launch delay may be influenced by strategic decisions of manufacturers at the national level (e.g., parallel trade or reference pricing).

ChatGPT for Automated Cross-Checking of Authors' Conflicts of Interest Against Industry Payments.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "OpenPayments" database tracks industry payments to US physicians to improve research conflicts of interest (COIs) transparency, but manual cross-checking of articles' authors against this database is labor-intensive. This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to automate COI data analysis in medical publications. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study analyzing the accuracy of ChatGPT in automating the cross-checking of COI disclosures in medical research articles against the OpenPayments database. SETTING: Publications regarding Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab. METHODS: First, ChatGPT evaluated author affiliations from PubMed to identify those based in the United States. Second, for author names matching 1 or multiple payment recipients in OpenPayments, ChatGPT undertook a comparative analysis between author affiliation and OpenPayments recipient metadata. Third, ChatGPT scrutinized full article COI statements, producing an intricate matrix of disclosures for each author against each relevant company (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline). A random subset of responses was manually checked for accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 78 relevant articles and 294 unique US authors were included, leading to 980 LLM queries. Manual verification showed accuracies of 100% (200/200; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.1%-100%) for country analysis, 97.4% (113/116; 95% CI: 92.7%-99.1%) for matching author affiliations with OpenPayments metadata, and 99.2% (1091/1100; 95% CI: 98.5%-99.6%) for COI statement data extraction. CONCLUSION: LLMs have robust potential to automate author-company-specific COI cross-checking against the OpenPayments database. Our findings pave the way for streamlined, efficient, and accurate COI assessment that could be widely employed across medical research.

Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told .

Often described as a natural economic trend, the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for new medicines have skyrocketed in recent years. Companies claim these prices are justified because of the 'value' new treatments represent or that they reflect the high costs and risks associated with the research and development process. They also claim that the revenues generated through these high prices are required to pay for continued innovation.This paper argues that high prices are not inevitable but the result of a societal and political choice to rely on a for-profit business model for medical innovation, selling medicines at the highest price possible. Instead of focusing on therapeutic advances, it prioritises profit maximisation to benefit shareholders and investors over improving people's health outcomes or equitable access.As a result, people and health systems worldwide struggle to pay for the increasingly expensive health products, with growing inequities in access to even life-saving medicines while the biopharmaceutical industry and its financiers are the most lucrative business sectors.As the extreme COVID-19 vaccine inequities once again highlighted, we urgently need to reform the social contract between governments, the biopharmaceutical industry, and the public and restore its original health purpose. Policymakers must redesign policies and financing of the pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem such that public and private sectors work together towards the shared objective of responding to public health and patients' needs, rather than maximising financial return because medicines should not be a luxury.