Brems John H, McCoy Matthew S
Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Oct-Dec;10(4):215-221. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2019.1670278. Epub 2019 Oct 8.
Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) provide patient education, raise public awareness, and influence health policy for a wide range of diseases. These organizations frequently receive financial support form from drug, device, and biotechnology companies. Though PAOs often develop policies to address institutional conflicts of interest arising from industry relations, little is known about the substance of these policies. We sampled all PAOs that are members of the National Health Council. Using a standardized search strategy, all policies were obtained from each organization if publicly available. We reviewed policies for content related to restrictions on corporate partnerships, disclosure of corporate funding, and governance and monitoring of corporate partnerships. We found that 24 of 47 (51%) organizations had policies that addressed institutional conflict of interest. A total of 9 of those 24 (38%) policies placed any restriction on the types of corporations that the PAO would or would not partner with. While 16 of the 24 (67%) outlined some process for disclosure of the organization's corporate donors, only 5 of 24 (21%) specified a manner for disclosing the financial value of those donations. Further, 15 of the 24 (63%) policies identified the person or persons responsible for approving corporate partnerships. However, 17 (71%) failed to address or specify the person(s) responsible for ongoing review of those partnerships. Nearly half of the organizations studied did not have publicly available conflict of interest policies. Among those that did, few policies had a substantial level of detail or limitations to guard against conflicts of interest.
患者权益倡导组织(PAO)为多种疾病提供患者教育、提高公众意识并影响卫生政策。这些组织经常接受来自制药、器械和生物技术公司的资金支持。尽管PAO经常制定政策以解决因行业关系产生的机构利益冲突,但对于这些政策的实质内容却知之甚少。我们对所有作为国家卫生委员会成员的PAO进行了抽样。采用标准化的搜索策略,若各组织的政策可公开获取,则全部获取。我们审查了这些政策中与限制企业合作关系、披露企业资金以及企业合作关系的治理和监督相关的内容。我们发现,47个组织中有24个(51%)制定了应对机构利益冲突的政策。在这24个政策中,共有9个(38%)对PAO会或不会合作的企业类型进行了任何限制。虽然24个政策中有16个(67%)概述了披露该组织企业捐赠者的某种程序,但24个政策中只有5个(21%)规定了披露这些捐赠财务价值的方式。此外,24个政策中有15个(63%)确定了负责批准企业合作关系的人员。然而,17个(71%)政策未提及或未明确负责对这些合作关系进行持续审查的人员。近一半接受研究的组织没有可公开获取的利益冲突政策。在有此类政策的组织中,很少有政策具备足够的细节或限制措施来防范利益冲突。