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.

Indirect Payments from Drug Companies to Doctors for CME Courses Will Be Exempt from Database

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

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

Quantifying Industry Spending on Promotional Events Using Open Payments Data

Physicians payment in the United States between 2014 and 2018: An analysis of the CMS Open Payments database

Characterizing industry payments to US teaching hospitals and affiliated physicians: a cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments datasets from 2016 to 2022

Industry Payments to Physicians in the United States From 2017 to 2021 and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

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

More Doctors Are Disclosing Payments from Drug Companies.

Concordance of Disclosed Hospital Prices With Total Reimbursements for Hospital-Based Care Among Commercially Insured Patients in the US

A Rule-Based Solution to Opaque Medical Billing in the U.S.

Raising the bar for disclosure of industry payments to doctors

Medical communication companies and industry grants

Medical Textbook Authors Received £11m in Undisclosed Payments from Drug and Device Makers.

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

The Cost of Influence: How Gifts to Physicians Shape Prescriptions and Drug Costs

726 Changes of Reported Industry Payments to Neurosurgeons Pre- and Post-Covid-19 Epidemic

A summit on amplifying voices of patients, caregivers, and people with disabilities in Inflation Reduction Act drug price negotiations

Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database

Trends in Industry Payments to Dermatologists: A 5-Year Analysis of Open Payments Data (2017-2021)

Compendia and Anticancer Therapy Under Medicare