Matthew S. McCoy is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Am J Public Health. 2018 Aug;108(8):1026-1030. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304467. Epub 2018 Jun 21.
Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) have long been regarded as important representatives of patient and caregiver interests in health policy debates. Recently, however, PAOs have attracted increased scrutiny over their financial ties to drug and device companies. In the past year, researchers and policymakers have called for the creation of a "sunshine law" requiring mandatory public reporting of industry payments to PAOs. Others have suggested that increased transparency would do little to address, and may even exacerbate, underlying concerns about proindustry bias among industry-funded PAOs. To date, however, the benefits of a sunshine law have not been well articulated, nor have objections to the idea been carefully addressed. In particular, little attention has been paid to clarifying the merits of statutorily mandated disclosure relative to those of increased voluntary disclosure by PAOs. I examine arguments for and against a sunshine law and conclude that the balance of reasons supports the enactment of such a law.
患者倡导组织(PAOs)长期以来一直被视为医疗政策辩论中患者和护理人员利益的重要代表。然而,最近,PAOs 因其与制药和医疗器械公司的财务关系而受到越来越多的审查。在过去的一年中,研究人员和政策制定者呼吁制定一项“阳光法案”,要求强制性公开报告行业向 PAOs 的付款情况。其他人则认为,增加透明度几乎无助于解决,甚至可能加剧人们对行业资助的 PAOs 中存在亲行业偏见的担忧。然而,迄今为止,阳光法案的好处还没有得到很好的阐述,也没有认真解决对这一想法的反对意见。特别是,对于法规要求的披露相对于 PAOs 自愿增加披露的优点,几乎没有给予关注。我审查了支持和反对阳光法案的论点,并得出结论,支持该法案的理由占了上风。