Financial Conflicts of Interest: Payment at the Expense of Patients?

Nina Niu Sanford,Bishal Gyawali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.24.00032

2024-03-18

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:This provocative editorial proposes four steps that can be immediately implemented to reduce the impact of financial conflicts of interest in oncology without stifling collaboration.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

Shubham Sharma,Bishal Gyawali,Christopher M. Booth,Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2021.7016

IF: 12.6934

2021-11-01

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract:Background: Editorials accompanying the publication of trials in major oncology journals can have a substantial influence on clinical practice. We describe the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) of authors writing such editorials and the extent to which FCOIs may shape the interpretation of clinical trials. Methods: We examined editorials published in 2018 alongside trial reports in the top 5 journals that publish cancer drug trials ( New England Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Lancet Oncology , JAMA Oncology , and Journal of Clinical Oncology ). An editorial was considered to have an FCOI if at least one of the editorialists had any disclosed FCOI. An FCOI with the same company whose drug was being discussed in the editorial was classified as a direct FCOI. Editorials were reviewed for their content and classified as being unduly favorable (defined as the presence of a positive spin without discussion of limitations) or not. Association of an FCOI and a direct FCOI with writing an unduly favorable editorial was assessed. Results: Of the 90 editorials assessed, 74% (n=67) were classified as having an FCOI with the pharmaceutical industry, and 39% (n=35) had an FCOI with the same company whose product was being discussed in the editorial (direct FCOI). Editorials were classified as being unduly favorable toward the study drug in 12% (8 of 67) and 13% (3 of 23) ( P =1.0) of those with and without FCOIs, respectively; corresponding rates with and without direct FCOI were 23% (8 of 35) and 5% (3 of 55), respectively ( P =.009). Conclusions: Editorials in top oncology journals were frequently authored by experts with FCOIs, including direct FCOIs. Authoring an unduly favorable editorial for a new cancer drug was significantly associated with the author having a direct FCOI with the same company. These findings support the call for journals to ensure that authors of editorials have no direct FCOIs.

oncology
Defining the Role of the Modern Oncology Provider in Mitigating Financial Toxicity

Christopher T Su,Veena Shankaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.10.011

Abstract:Financial toxicity, the cumulative financial hardships resulting from cancer diagnosis and treatment, is a growing problem in the United States. With the proliferation of costly novel therapeutics and improved cancer survival, financial toxicity will remain a major issue in cancer care delivery. Frontline oncology providers serve as gatekeepers in the medical system and, as such, could play essential roles in recognizing and addressing financial toxicity. Providers and health systems could help mitigate financial toxicity through routine financial toxicity screening, financial navigation, and advocacy. Specific strategies include developing and implementing financial screening instruments that can be integrated in electronic medical records and establishing team-based financial navigation programs to help patients with out-of-pocket medical costs, nonmedical spending, and insurance optimization. Finally, providers should continue to advocate for policies and legislation that decrease cost and promote value-based care. In this review, we examine opportunities for provider engagement in these areas and highlight gaps for future research.
Addressing financial toxicity in cancer treatment—An opportunity for the 340B drug pricing program

Kassem S. Faraj,Megan E. V. Caram,Vahakn B. Shahinian,Brent K. Hollenbeck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35379

IF: 6.9209

2024-05-29

Cancer

Abstract:Cancer treatment has become increasingly expensive, partially due to the use of specialty drugs. The costs of these drugs are often passed down to patients, who may face the consequences of paying for more than they can afford, leading to financial toxicity. The 340B drug pricing program is a health care policy that may provide an opportunity to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer care. The 340B program requires manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at a discount to hospitals caring for a significant number of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. The program intended for hospitals to use savings from discounted purchases to expand their safety net to vulnerable patients. Some studies have shown that participating hospitals do this by offering more charity and discounted care, whereas others have demonstrated that hospitals fail to sufficiently expand their safety net. A potential flaw of the program is the lack of guidance from governing bodies on how hospitals should use savings from discounted purchases. There has been growing discussion among stakeholders to reform the 340B program given the mixed findings of its effectiveness. With the rising costs of specialty drugs and associated prevalence of financial toxicity in patients with cancer, there is an opportunity to address these issues through reform that improves the program. Directing hospitals to offer specific safety net opportunities, such as passing along discounted drug prices to vulnerable populations, could help the growing number of patients who are financially burdened by medications at the core of the 340B program.

oncology
Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by oncology journals on Twitter

Colton Betts,Akash Kakkilaya,Satvik Vasireddy,Neha Arora,Vinay Prasad,Kerrington Powell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05230-y

2023-08-08

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

Abstract:BackgroundPhysicians have increasingly adopted Twitter as a discussion and distribution platform for oncology research. While the influence of financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) on medical research is well documented, their role in the dissemination of research on social media platforms is not well known. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOIs of physicians followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter.Materials and MethodsWe used the Open Payments Search Tool (https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov) to assess FCOIs between 2016 and 2021 of United States (US) physicians followed by three oncology journals (Journal of Clinical Oncology, The Lancet Oncology, and Annals of Oncology) on Twitter.ResultsOf 1914 Twitter accounts followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter, 547 (28.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of these, 463 (84.6%) received general payments between 2016 and 2021. After excluding 30 US physicians currently in residency or fellowship, this percentage increased to 88.2% (n = 456/517). Combined, the median (interquartile range) general payment amount was $8100 ($200–90,000). Additionally, over $42 million in general payments were made between 2016 and 2021.ConclusionOur findings offer insight on FCOIs between oncology journals and US physicians on Twitter. These findings may serve as the foundation for future research regarding optimal medical journal conduct on social media platforms.

oncology
Addressing Financial Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer—A Crucial Imperative

Leila J. Mady,Zachary N. Goldberg,John R. de Almeida

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2024.0427

2024-04-11

JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery

Abstract:This Viewpoint calls for consideration of the financial costs of head and neck cancer care when choosing treatment strategies for patients who may face severe financial stress or insolvency due to cancer treatment.

surgery,otorhinolaryngology
Financial Conflict-of-Interest Policies in U.S Medical Research

Guang-kuan XIE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-8565.2008.06.042

2008-01-01

Abstract:Investigators' financial conflict of interest in medical research may compromise the objectivity of the research results and the well-being of subjects.Lots of policies have been made to deal with these possible negative influences in US.This paper analyses the background of US COI policy-making and introduces the COI policies of government agencies,academic associations,medical magazines.
Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops

Sarah L. Miller,Alyson Haslam,Vinay Prasad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14184

2024-02-28

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract:We examined the characteristics and conflicts of interest of presenters at haematology/oncology workshops held with the US FDA. Among US physician presenters, the mean general yearly payment from the pharmaceutical industry was 2981). We found that 69% of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Among those for which detailed meeting slides or recordings could be obtained, we found that 50% of presenters included a disclosure slide or verbally indicated their disclosures. Objective To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA. Setting We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. Exposure General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings. Results Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was 16,434 per year) and the median was 2981 per year). Sixty‐nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers. Conclusions and Relevance Our findings in this cross‐sectional study show a majority of US‐based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

medicine, general & internal, research & experimental
How to Deal with Investigators' Financial Conflict of Interest in Clinical Research: Subject,Principles and Strategies

Xie Guangkuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-8565.2005.05.003

2005-01-01

Abstract:Investigators' financial conflict of interest in clinical research may compromise the well-being of subjects,the objectivity of the research results.Should this kind of conflict of interest be deal with? Who should deal with it? What ethical principle should be adopted? What strategies should we use? This article will argue that investigators,institutes,professional associations,governmental agencies and medical journals should deal with financial conflict of interest together.They can use some strategies such as disclosure,management and prohibition according to the principles of Justice,Nonmaleficence/Beneficence,and Respect for Persons.
Financial Toxicity in Radiation Oncology: Impact for Our Patients and for Practicing Radiation Oncologists

Victoria S Wu,Xinglei Shen,Janet de Moor,Fumiko Chino,Jonathan Klein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2023.101419

2023-12-10

Abstract:With rising costs of diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship, financial burdens on patients with cancer and negative effects from high costs, called financial toxicity (FT), are growing. Research suggests that FT may be experienced by more than half of working-age cancer survivors and a similar proportion may incur debt or avoid recommended prescription medications due to treatment costs. As FT can lead to worse physical, psychological, financial, and survival outcomes, there is a discrete need to identify research gaps around this issue that constrain the development and implementation of effective screening and innovative care delivery interventions. Prior research, including within a radiation oncology-specific context, has sought to identify the scope of FT among patients with cancer, develop assessment tools to evaluate patient risk, quantify financial sacrifices, and qualify care compromises that occur when cancer care is unaffordable. FT is a multifactorial problem and potential solutions should be pursued at all levels of the health care system (patient-provider, institutional, and systemic) with specific regard for patients' individual/local contexts. Solutions may include selecting alternative treatment schedules, discussing financial concerns with patients, providing financial navigation services, low-cost transportation options, and system-wide health policy shifts. This review summarizes existing FT research, describes tools developed to measure FT, and suggests areas for intervention and study to help improve FT and outcomes for radiation oncology patients.
Financial toxicity: An overlooked problem in the era of molecular and immune therapy of cancer treatment

Jiayu YAO,Xia WU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-0460.2019.02.019

2019-01-01

Chinese Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Much substantial evidence suggests that financial toxicity has become an issue in the era of molecular and immune therapy of cancer treatment. Some independent factors related to financial toxicity including illness status, patients' general health, age, race, income, health insurance. Financial problem can lead to lower quality of life, poor medical care, treatment nonadherence, impaired working ability and thus increase the mortality. Therefore, the interventions should be done in multiple levels and requires all parts of populaion involved. At the same time, we need more evidence-based research and statistics for guidance.
Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

J.B. Schnog,M.J. Samson,I. Gersenbluth,A.J. Duits

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.23.00533

2024-02-14

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:PURPOSE Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs). METHODS In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021. RESULTS A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value. DISCUSSION Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

oncology
Closed Financial Loops: When They Happen in Government, They're Called Corruption; in Medicine, They're Just a Footnote

Kevin De Jesus-Morales,Vinay Prasad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.700

Abstract:Many physicians are involved in relationships that create tension between a physician's duty to work in her patients' best interest at all times and her financial arrangement with a third party, most often a pharmaceutical manufacturer, whose primary goal is maximizing sales or profit. Despite the prevalence of this threat, in the United States and globally, the most common reaction to conflicts of interest in medicine is timid acceptance. There are few calls for conflicts of interest to be banned, and, to our knowledge, no one calls for conflicted practitioners to be reprimanded. Contrast our attitudes in medicine with public attitudes toward financial conflicts among government employees. When enforcement of rules against conflict of interest slackens in the public sector, news organizations investigate and publish their criticism. Yet even when doctors are quoted in the media promoting specific drugs, their personal financial ties to the drug maker are rarely mentioned. Policies for governmental employees are strict, condemnation is strong, and criminal statutes exist (allowing for corruption charges). Yet the evidence that conflict is problematic is, if anything, stronger in medicine than in the public sector. Policies against conflicts of interest in medicine should be at least as strong as those already existing in the public sector.
Impact of a proactive patient assistance program for diverse ambulatory oncology patients: A retrospective cohort study.

Patricia P Falconer,Alexandra Elyse Phillip,Aja M Scott,Lisa Philipp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13513

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13513 Background: Significant differences persist in cancer incidence, survival, morbidity, and mortality among populations in the U.S. Individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) suffer disproportionately from cancer and other disease burdens compared to individuals with higher SES. Financial hardship is increasingly common, with many cancer survivors reporting difficulty paying medical bills, high financial distress, and delaying or forgoing care because of cost. Cancer patients reporting financial hardship are more likely to have psychosocial distress. Financial distress has been linked with several clinically relevant patient outcomes including quality of life, symptom burden, compliance, and survival. An NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) with a diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic patient population utilizes My Wellness Check (MWC) program to identify patients experiencing emotional, physical, practical, and social concerns. Among 4,117 MWC patient responders representing 43.1% of eligible patients during October 2019 - February 2022, 801 patients (19.5%) with 976 supportive or practical needs alerts were triggered to social workers where only 68.4% of the alerts were acted upon within a 72-hour window. For patients identified by MWC as having financial toxicity, Social Workers identified available resources to assist with patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Methods: In July 2022, the CCC launched a patient financial assistance program which included screening of all patients receiving systemic therapy administered at infusion centers. A third-party partner was contracted to provide patient advocates and technology augmenting the EHR. Patient Advocates identified eligible patients and enrolled them into financial assistance programs. Results: A retrospective analysis was performed for the period of May 2022 - December 2023, comparing patients receiving philanthropic medical financial assistance consisting of copay assistance and grants sponsored by drug manufacturers and diagnosis based non-profit foundations with infusion center patient population demographic data. The cohort participating in patient assistance programs included a higher percentage of female, Hispanic, age 27-64, commercially insured, and patients that reside in high and medium-high Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) counties. Conclusions: A proactive patient financial assistance program can help reduce financial distress for patients with cancer, especially those residing in high and medium high SVI counties. Leveraging the expertise of a third party helps mitigate financial toxicity in the short term and can help drive more equitable cancer outcomes.

oncology
The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis

Xiyu Zhao,Victor Yang,Mohammed Ullah,Mark Schuweiler,Jonathan Zou,Austin Chen,Shuhan Jia,Padmini Ranasinghe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-024-02563-7

2024-12-01

Medical Oncology

Abstract:The integration of pharmaceutical and medical device companies with clinical practice is under scrutiny due to financial incentives that may influence oncology care. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates transparency in these financial relationships. This study examines the trends in non-research payments to oncology specialists between 2017 and 2023, analyzing amounts, reasons, and variations by subspecialty and region. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, focusing on U.S.-based hematology, medical oncology, and hematology-oncology specialists. Payments were categorized by amount, purpose, and payment type, with temporal and geographic comparisons. Data analysis was conducted in Rstudio (version 2022.07.0) with Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi-square tests to assess statistical significance across specialties, regions, and payment periods. Between 2017 and 2023, 2,158,140 payments totaling 393,169,915.10) and transaction count (1,700,202), while hematology had the highest median payment ( 18.12) and medical oncology ( 36.8 million in 2023, while the Northeast had the highest median payment values, reaching $22.87 in 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic corresponded with lasting shifts in payment patterns, with median payment values rising significantly during the pandemic period and remaining elevated post-COVID across all specialties. Additionally, the distribution of payments by type revealed that direct cash payments and consulting fees were the most prominent, with hematology-oncology showing the greatest reliance on high-value cash transactions, while stock payments featured prominently in hematology. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these patterns as robust, with minimal variance observed when excluding extreme values, further validating consistent trends across specialties, regions, and periods. This study reveals specialty- and region-specific variations in oncology-related payments, with significant increases during key conferences and the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings underscore the importance of continued transparency and scrutiny in industry-oncology financial interactions to mitigate potential conflicts of interest in oncology care.

oncology
Ethical and moral principles for oncology healthcare workers: A brief report from a Bioethics consortium emphasizing on need for education

Manjeshwar S Baliga,Vijaya Marakala,Lal P Madathil,Thomas George,Russell F D'souza,Princy L Palatty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1048_23

2024-04-29

Abstract:The medical sub-specialty of Oncology presents diverse ethical dilemmas, often challenging cancer healthcare workers with difficult-to-handle clinical scenarios that are tough from a personal and professional perspective. Making decisions on patient care in various circumstances is a defining obligation of an oncologist and those duty-based judgments entail more than just selecting the best treatment or solution. Ethics is an essential and inseparable aspect of clinical medicine and the oncologists as well as the allied health care workers are ethically committed to helping the patient, avoiding or minimizing harm, and respecting the patient's values and choices. This review provides an overview of ethics and clinical ethics and the four main ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are stated and explained. At times there are frequently contradictions between ethical principles in patient care scenarios, especially between beneficence and autonomy. In addition, truth-telling, professionalism, empathy, and cultural competence; which are recently considered important in cancer care, are also addressed from an Indian perspective.
Interventions to alleviate financial toxicity among patients with cancer: A systematic review.

Asad Arastu,Andrew Hamilton,Emerson Yu-sheng Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e18841

IF: 45.3

2021-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e18841 Background: Financial toxicity (FT) has become a recognized side effect associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment; however, there is little data on what interventions have proven to be effective at mitigating the financial burden patients might face. Methods: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Met-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. Broad terminology to capture FT and all possible interventions was used to identify articles published through June 25, 2020 in MEDLINE and July 31, 2020 in Embase and PsycInfo. We excluded systematic reviews, studies not conducted in the United States, with non-adult participants, or those that did not examine an intervention to directly alleviate FT. Two independent reviewers (AA and EYC) reviewed all abstracts to identify which articles met inclusion criteria. An inductive approach was used to thematically categorize unique intervention strategies. Results: A total of 1126 abstracts were identified from the initial search strategy, and 9 met final inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 12 distinct strategies were reported in 27 unique occurrences. They were mapped into four broad domains: 1) patient assistance programs (PAPs) through pharmaceutical company and/or charity sponsored programs, 2) financial navigators who provide counseling and community resources, 3) direct coverage through free medications or payments, and 4) indirect coverage for related services (e.g. transportation). Direct coverage was most commonly proposed, 15/27 (56%) of interventions, followed by PAPs 5/27 (18%), financial navigators 4/27 (15%), and indirect costs 3/27 (11%). These interventions led to outcomes including: cost savings to patients in 5/9 studies (56%), alleviated fears surrounding cost of treatment in 2/9 (22%), earlier medication fills in 1/9 (11%), and decreased anxiety on a self-reported Likert scale in 1/9 (11%). Conclusions: While potential solutions to FT from cancer care remain unclear, this systematic review demonstrates that particular implemented strategies have lessened patient expenses, improved therapy adherence, or helped patients live better. Additional resources could help equip providers and institutions on how to use existing infrastructure (PAPs) or how to deploy additional workforce to diminish FT.

oncology
Financial Toxicity in Cancer Supportive Care: An International Survey

Alexandre Chan,Yu Ke,Mary Tanay,Mary Dagsi,Cristiane Bergerot,Niharika Dixit,Lawson Eng,Ana Cardeña Gutiérrez,Changchuan Jiang,Ana I Velázquez,Farhad Islami,Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00043

Abstract:Purpose: The study aims to explore unmet social needs and sources of financial toxicities in patients as noted by health care professionals and researchers in cancer supportive care, shedding light on potential health disparities. Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, we anonymously surveyed active members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). The survey, structured in three sections, included questions regarding the routine assessment of social needs during patient consultations, sociodemographic aspects, factors influencing financial toxicity (FT), perceived support for managing FT, and available/desirable resources. Results: A total of 218 MASCC members were included, predominantly from high-income countries (HIC, 73.4%), with many age 41-60 years (56.5%) and female (56.9%). Drug/treatment cost and insurance coverage were the main sources for FT among the HIC, whereas participants from low-middle-income countries (LMIC) considered transportation cost, loss of employment because of cancer diagnosis, and unavailability of return-to-work services as the top three sources of FT. Respondents from LMIC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.01 [95% CI, 1.15 to 7.93]) and physicians (aOR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.15 to 6.21]) were more likely to routinely assess financial coverages. Socioeconomic status was consistently ranked as one of the top three sources of financial toxicities by participants from LMIC (34%), HIC excluding the United States (38%), those who do not self-identify as racial/ethnic minority (36%), and physicians (40%). Conclusion: This global survey of health care professionals and researchers in HIC and LMIC revealed varying approaches to assessing financial coverage and social needs. Socioeconomic status emerged as a consistent concern across countries, affecting financial toxicities. The study highlights the need for tailored approaches and improved resource visibility while emphasizing clinicians' pivotal role in addressing financial aspects of cancer care.
"Financially Palliative": The Need to Address a Perplexing Financial Conundrum in Emergency and Critical Care

Rachana Bhat,Akshaya Ramaswami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24786

Abstract:The terminology "Financially Palliative" is a pseudonym and refers to a unique challenge faced in countries where public healthcare insurance coverage is not robust and the percentage of out-of-pocket health expenditure continues to be high. Emergency and critical care healthcare expenditures in such circumstances usually pose additional burden as they are unforeseen expenses, disproportionately high, for which most people are unprepared. Such situations may lead into a vicious cycle that initiates with expenditure hesitancy and delay in definitive care, which in turn leads to deterioration in the patient's condition and delay-related complications. This further fuels expenditure hesitancy due to uncertain prognosis and outcomes. The future threats posed by this issue are manifold, which are not only restricted to poor patient outcomes and diminishing physician morale but also hinder progress in science by influencing research outcomes/endpoints in areas where it is highly prevalent. Identifying and defining the problem with terminology is only the first step in working towards solutions. The issue needs to be addressed and mitigated before it spreads its roots deeper into our healthcare system. How to cite this article: Bhat R, Ramaswami A. "Financially Palliative": The Need to Address a Perplexing Financial Conundrum in Emergency and Critical Care. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(9):820-822.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study

Khalid El Bairi,Salma Najem,Arman Reza Chowdhury,Abeid Omar,Omar Abdihamid,Laure-Anne Teuwen,Nada Benhima,Ainhoa Madariaga,Safa Elkefi,Fernando Cristobal Diaz,Sadaqat Hussain,Kristina Jenei,Nazik Hammad,Miriam Mutebi,Fidel Rubagumya,Dario Trapani,Nadia El Kadmiri,Nasser Laouali,Maryam Fourtassi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00167

Abstract:Purpose: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. Materials and methods: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. Results: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.
Conflicts of Interest in Bronchoscopy Research: Is Self-Reporting Sufficient?

Kaele M Leonard,Timothy A Khalil,Jacob Welch,Greta Dahlberg,Ankush Ratwani,Jennifer D Duke,Rafael Paez,Elisa J Gordon,Samira Shojaee,Robert J Lentz,Fabien Maldonado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.006

IF: 9.6

2024-10-18

Chest

Abstract:Background: Robotic assisted bronchoscopy has been enthusiastically adopted in the United States and has transformed the treatment of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Unprecedented industry investments in research, development, and marketing have profoundly affected the bronchoscopy landscape, leading to concerns that conflicts of interest could influence the validity of bronchoscopy studies. Disclosures of conflicts of interest in research are predicated on open and transparent self-reporting. Research question: Are self-reported relevant conflicts of interest in articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy accurate when compared with publicly available payments on the Open Payments Database of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services? Study design and methods: All articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy indexed on PubMed between 2016 and 2022 were screened for relevance. Articles appearing in the five journals with the most relevant publications were selected. General, research, and associated research payments reported in the Open Payments Database were recorded for each US physician-author with available data. "Relevant payments" refers to transactions made to authors by bronchoscopy-related companies. Documentation of all payments involving these companies during the 3 years before the submission date of an article was obtained. These payments were compared with the self-reported conflicts of interest for each author, per article, and the number and value of payments were categorized and totaled. Results: Twenty-seven articles were included, accounting for 75 US physicians with data reported in the Open Payments Database. Of the $17 million in relevant payments reported, $9.9 million were not disclosed (57%). Sixty-eight of 75 authors (91%) had incomplete physician disclosures. Excluding food and beverage payments, 60 authors had incomplete disclosures (80%). Interpretation: Relevant conflicts of interest appear to be inconsistently disclosed in publications on robotic assisted bronchoscopy, suggesting that self-reporting may be an insufficient strategy. A centralized disclosure process that is automated or easier to use should be considered.

Financial Conflicts of Interest: Payment at the Expense of Patients?

Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

Defining the Role of the Modern Oncology Provider in Mitigating Financial Toxicity

Addressing financial toxicity in cancer treatment—An opportunity for the 340B drug pricing program

Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by oncology journals on Twitter

Addressing Financial Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer—A Crucial Imperative

Financial Conflict-of-Interest Policies in U.S Medical Research

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops

How to Deal with Investigators' Financial Conflict of Interest in Clinical Research: Subject,Principles and Strategies

Financial Toxicity in Radiation Oncology: Impact for Our Patients and for Practicing Radiation Oncologists

Financial toxicity: An overlooked problem in the era of molecular and immune therapy of cancer treatment

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

Closed Financial Loops: When They Happen in Government, They're Called Corruption; in Medicine, They're Just a Footnote

Impact of a proactive patient assistance program for diverse ambulatory oncology patients: A retrospective cohort study.

The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis

Ethical and moral principles for oncology healthcare workers: A brief report from a Bioethics consortium emphasizing on need for education

Interventions to alleviate financial toxicity among patients with cancer: A systematic review.

Financial Toxicity in Cancer Supportive Care: An International Survey

"Financially Palliative": The Need to Address a Perplexing Financial Conundrum in Emergency and Critical Care

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study

Conflicts of Interest in Bronchoscopy Research: Is Self-Reporting Sufficient?