Abstract:Objective: To estimate the association between oncologists' receipt of payments from the pharmaceutical industry and delivery of non-recommended or low value interventions among their patients. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Fee-for-service Medicare claims. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of incident cancer (new occurrence of a cancer diagnosis code in proximity to claims for cancer treatment, and no such diagnosis codes during a ≥1 year washout period) during 2014-19, who met additional requirements identifying them as at risk for one of four non-recommended or low value interventions: denosumab for castration sensitive prostate cancer, granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no evidence of superiority over paclitaxel, and a branded drug in settings where a generic or biosimilar version was available. Main outcome measures: Receipt of the non-recommended or low value drug for which the patient was at risk. The primary association of interest was the assigned oncologist's receipt of any general payments from the manufacturer of the corresponding non-recommended or low value drug (measured in Open Payments) within 365 days before the patient's index cancer date. The two modeling approaches used were general linear model controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, and general linear model with physician level indicator variables. Results: Oncologists were in receipt of industry payments for 2962 of 9799 patients (30.2%) at risk for non-recommended denosumab (median $63), 76 747 of 271 485 patients (28.3%) at risk for GCSF (median $60); 18 491 of 86 394 patients (21.4%) at risk for nab-paclitaxel (median $89), and 4170 of 13 386 patients (31.2%) at risk for branded drugs (median $156). The unadjusted proportion of patients who received non-recommended denosumab was 31.4% for those whose oncologist had not received payment and 49.5% for those whose oncologist had (prevalence difference 18.0%); the corresponding values for GCSF were 26.6% v 32.1% (5.5%), for nab-paclitaxel were 7.3% v 15.1% (7.8%), and for branded drugs were 88.3% v 83.5% (-4.8%). Controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (17.5% (95% confidence interval 15.3% to 19.7%)), GCSF (5.8% (5.4% to 6.1%)), and nab-paclitaxel (7.6% (7.1% to 8.1%)), but lower use of branded drugs (-4.6% (-5.8% to -3.3%)). In physician level indicator models, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (7.4% (2.5% to 12.2%)) and nab-paclitaxel (1.7% (0.9% to 2.5%)), but not with GCSF (0.4% (-0.3% to 1.1%)) or branded drugs (1.2% (-6.0 to 8.5%)). Conclusions: Within some clinical scenarios, industry payments to physicians are associated with non-recommended and low value drugs. These findings raise quality of care concerns about the financial relationships between physicians and industry.

Medical communication companies and industry grants

Association of Compensation From the Surgical and Medical Device Industry to Physicians and Self-declared Conflict of Interest

A cross-sectional study of policies from American medical organizations about public communications from physicians in the digital age

Payments to healthcare organisations reported by the medical device industry in Europe from 2017 to 2019: an observational study

Characterization of industry relationships in oncology

Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs

Advertising by academic medical centers

Industry-Funded Continuing Medical Education: The Potential for Bias.

The Rich Get Richer: The Matthew Effect in Open Payments

Ethical issues of medical schools and their academic departments accepting gifts from pharma

Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals

Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI™) Benchmark Study: Trends, Drivers, and Value of Product Support Activities, Key Performance Indicators, and Other Medical Information Services: Insights from a Survey of 27 US Pharmaceutical Medical Information Departments

Physician-Industry Cooperation In The Medical Device Industry

Medical device companies crisis communication response to stakeholders during COVID-19: pre-crisis stage to new normal

Sunshine on KOL : a retrospective study about financial ties between medical key opinion leaders and pharmaceutical industry in France

Mining Open Payments Data: Analysis of Industry Payments to Thoracic Surgeons From 2014-2016

SAGES perspective: professional medical associations, commercial interests, and conflicts of interest

Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research

Trends in medical device company payments in neurosurgery: a nationwide, multidatabase, geospatial analysis

Quantifying Industry Spending on Promotional Events Using Open Payments Data

Pharmaceutical industry payments and delivery of non-recommended and low value cancer drugs: population based cohort study