Financial Profit in Medicine: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

Decisional autonomy undermines advisees' judgments of experts in medicine and in life.

Over the past several decades, the United States medical system has increasingly prioritized patient autonomy. Physicians routinely encourage patients to come to their own decisions about their medical care rather than providing patients with clearer yet more paternalistic advice. Although political theorists, bioethicists, and philosophers generally see this as a positive trend, the present research examines the important question of how patients and advisees in general react to full decisional autonomy when making difficult decisions under uncertainty. Across six experiments (N = 3,867), we find that advisers who give advisees decisional autonomy rather than offering paternalistic advice are judged to be less competent and less helpful. As a result, advisees are less likely to return to and recommend these advisers and pay them lower wages. Importantly, we also demonstrate that advisers do not anticipate these effects. We document these results both inside and outside the medical domain, suggesting that the preference for paternalism is not unique to medicine but rather is a feature of situations in which there are adviser-advisee asymmetries in expertise. We find that the preference for paternalism holds when advice is solicited or unsolicited, when both paternalism and autonomy are accompanied by expert guidance, and it persists both before and after the outcomes of paternalistic advice are realized. Lastly, we see that the preference for paternalism only occurs when decision makers perceive their decision to be difficult. These results challenge the benefits of recently adopted practices in medical decision making that prioritize full decisional autonomy.

Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type. REVIEW METHODS: Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: 26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency's disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors' interests. CONCLUSION: In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017079265.

Quantifying Risk of Financial Incapacity and Financial Exploitation in Community-dwelling Older Adults: Utility of a Scoring System for the Lichtenberg Financial Decision-making Rating Scale.

Objectives: This work examines the clinical utility of the scoring system for the Lichtenberg Financial Decision-making Rating Scale (LFDRS) and its usefulness for decision making capacity and financial exploitation. Objective 1 was to examine the clinical utility of a person centered, empirically supported, financial decision making scale. Objective 2 was to determine whether the risk-scoring system created for this rating scale is sufficiently accurate for the use of cutoff scores in cases of decisional capacity and cases of suspected financial exploitation. Objective 3 was to examine whether cognitive decline and decisional impairment predicted suspected financial exploitation.Methods: Two hundred independently living, non-demented community-dwelling older adults comprised the sample. Participants completed the rating scale and other cognitive measures.Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves were in the good to excellent range for decisional capacity scoring, and in the fair to good range for financial exploitation.Conclusions: Analyses supported the conceptual link between decision making deficits and risk for exploitation, and supported the use of the risk-scoring system in a community-based population.Clinical Implications: This study adds to the empirical evidence supporting the use of the rating scale as a clinical tool assessing risk for financial decisional impairment and/or financial exploitation.

The dynamics of corruptogenic organizations.

Corruptogenic organizational dynamics have been largely ignored in reporting about recent corporate scandals. Using a large group framework, the author identifies factors within an organization that create a breeding ground for unethical or illegal behavior and attract individuals unconsciously looking for ways to damage themselves or others. An organizational culture that promotes questionable attitudes and behaviors along with subgroups that produce powerful corruptive forces can destroy a firm and damage the economy. Enron and the Madoff investment group are identified as corruptogenic organizations put together by founders and a leadership core bent on self-destruction and traumatizing the community-outcomes beyond that which are usually linked to greed. Suggestions are provided to organizational consultants and policy makers as to how to determine the potential for corruption hidden in their midst and to implement countervailing structures and processes.

Ethics, rhetoric, and expectations: responsibilities and obligations of health care systems.

Health care organization foundations and other fund-raising departments often function at an arm's length from the system at large. As such, operations related to their mandate to raise funds and market the organization do not receive the same level of ethical scrutiny brought to bear on other arms within the organization. An area that could benefit from a more focused ethics lens is the use of language and rhetoric employed in order to raise funds and market the organization. Such departments and divisions often utilize overblown promises of miracles and extraordinary advances to convince donors to contribute and to persuade the general public. The result can be a heightened sense of expectation on the part of patients, their families, and the general public as to what can realistically be achieved by the health care system, leading to disappointment and conflict when these expectations are not or cannot be met. This article suggests that such advertising and marketing be subject to the same advertising standards as other businesses.

Masters of the universe: how power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard.

This article provides an answer to the question of why agents make self-serving decisions under moral hazard and how their self-serving decisions can be kept in check through institutional arrangements. Our theoretical model predicts that the agents' power and the manner in which they are held accountable jointly determine their propensity to make self-serving decisions. We test our theory in the context of financial investment decisions made under moral hazard using others' funds. Across 3 studies, using different decision-making tasks, different manipulations of power and accountability, and different samples, we show that agents' power makes them more likely to behave in a self-serving manner under moral hazard, but only when the appropriate accountability mechanisms are not in place. Specifically, we distinguish between outcome and procedural accountability and show that holding agents accountable for their decision-making procedure reduces the level of self-serving decisions under moral hazard and also curbs the negative consequences of power. Implications for decisions under moral hazard, the psychology of power, and the accountability literature are discussed.

Guideline funding and conflicts of interest: article 4 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.

INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 14 articles prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other disease. It focuses on commercial funding of guidelines and managing conflict of interest effectively in the context of guidelines. METHODS: In this review, we addressed the following topics and questions. (1) How are clinical practice guidelines funded? (2) What are the risks associated with commercial sponsorship of guidelines? (3) What relationships should guideline committee members be required to disclose? (4) What is the most efficient way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures? (5) How should disclosures be publicly shared? (6) When do relationships require management? (7) How should individual conflicts of interest be managed? (8) How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? The literature review included a search of PubMed and other databases for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Professional societies often depend on industry funding to support clinical practice guideline development. In addition, members of guideline committees frequently have financial relationships with commercial entities, are invested in their intellectual work, or have conflicts related to clinical revenue streams. No systematic reviews or other rigorous evidence regarding best practices for funding models, disclosure mechanisms, management strategies, or enforcement presently exist, but the panel drew several conclusions that could improve transparency and process.

Different labs.

In this case a young dentist has signed onto a managed care plan that has several attractive features. Eventually, however, he notices that he makes little or no net revenue for some of the work that he does. A colleague recommends that he use different labs for different patients, with labs matched to each patient's dental plan and coverage. Offshore labs are used for managed care patients. Three knowledgeable experts comment on the case, two with many years of private practice experience, two who are dental educators holding master's degrees in philosophy and bioethics.

Reasons on the similarity of objections with regards to gambling and speculation in Islamic finance and conventional finance.

Gambling and speculation which leads to zero-sum outcomes are prohibited in Islamic finance and condemned in conventional finance. This article explores the reasons for the similarity of objections towards gambling and speculation. Three probable reasons are explored namely the concept of stewardship in conventional thought and the concept of khalifa in Islam, Christianity and morality's influence on conventional law and finance and the concept of ethics of sacrifice and ethics of tolerance.

Holding the World Bank accountable for leakage of funds from Africa's health sector.

This article explores the accountability of international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank, for human rights violations related to the massive leakage of funds from sub-Saharan Africa's health sector. The article begins by summarizing the quantitative results of Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys performed in six African countries, all showing disturbingly high levels of leakage in the health sector. It then addresses the inadequacy of good governance and anticorruption programs in remedying this problem. After explaining how the World Bank's Inspection Panel may serve as an accountability mechanism for addressing the leakage of funds, discussing violations of specific Bank policies and procedures that would support a claim related to leakage and examining the relevance of human rights concerns to such as claim, the article explores some of the Panel's limitations and the positive steps taken to address these concerns.

Key personnel and "long distance" settings: determining who must report financial conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) can impact the integrity of scientific research. While public imagination has focused on scientists, regulatory discourse recognizes a broader range of individuals who might have financial COIs. This essay asks, for personnel who enroll subjects at a physical and organizational remove from the primary research team, whether reporting COI to an institutional review board or COI committee protects research integrity. After examining definitions of COI, regulations on COI, and rubrics for evaluating COI policies, we argue that requiring recruitment personnel who work at a distance from the primary research team to report potential COI protects neither research integrity nor human subjects.