Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4229, Australia
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4229, Australia.
BMJ. 2020 May 27;369:m1505. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1505.
To investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies.
Cross sectional study.
Professional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database.
328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians.
Proportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships.
235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m-predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Financial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.
调查美国有影响力的专业医学协会领导人与制药和医疗设备公司之间财务关系的性质和程度。
横断面研究。
根据美国医疗保健研究与质量局,美国 10 个最昂贵疾病领域的专业协会。协会领导的财务数据,2017-19 年,从公开支付数据库中获得。
10 个专业医学协会的 328 名领导,如董事会成员:美国心脏病学会、矫形创伤协会、美国精神病学协会、内分泌学会、美国风湿病学会、美国临床肿瘤学会、美国胸科学会、北美脊柱协会、传染病学会和美国医师学会。
领导在任职当年、任职前四年和后一年与行业有财务关系的比例,以及这些财务关系的性质和程度。
328 名领导人中有 235 名(72%)与行业有财务联系。在 293 名医学博士或骨科医生领导中,有 235 名(80%)有联系。2017-19 年的领导薪酬总额近 1.3 亿美元(1.03 亿英镑;1.19 亿欧元),每位领导的中位数为 31805 美元(四分位距 1157-254272 美元)。一般报酬,包括咨询和款待费用,为 2480 万美元,研究报酬为 1.046 亿美元-主要是支付给以协会领导为主要研究员的学术机构。各协会之间差异很大:美国精神病学协会领导的中位数为 21.2 万美元,而美国临床肿瘤学会的中位数为 51.8 万美元。
美国有影响力的专业医学协会领导与行业之间的财务关系广泛,尽管各协会之间存在差异。支付款项的数量引起了对独立性和完整性的质疑,这为政策改革增加了份量。