Volume 206 - Issue 9

A positive step for pharmaceutical payment transparency

Authors:  Jessica Dean, Malcolm P Forbes and Richard Di Natale

Med J Aust 2017; 206 (9): 414. || doi: 10.5694/mja16.01101
Published online: 15 May 2017

To the Editor:

Since 1 October 2016, under changes in the Medicines Australia code of conduct,1 the names of all doctors receiving payments from pharmaceutical companies are being published online, together with the dollar amount received; the data will remain available for 3 years. Up until now, this information could only be published with the doctor’s consent.

This change — part of the latest edition of the code of conduct — is the industry’s response to attempt to legislate for greater transparency. It represents a significant step forward in the transparency of the relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

In 2015, pharmaceutical company-funded educational expenses for doctors included a $70 000 trip to Sweden for six oncologists and a $176 000 trip to Vancouver for nine dermatologists.2 With the new changes, it is likely that doctors will think twice before accepting large pharmaceutical company funding for educational events, given this information will be available to the public.

Despite a considerable body of evidence showing that receipt of meals and sponsorship is associated with altered prescribing patterns,3,4 many doctors continue to incorrectly believe that they can effectively manage the influence of pharmaceutical company promotion on their decision making.4 The challenge for the profession is to foster doctor–pharmaceutical company relationships that benefit patients, while maintaining freedom from undue influence on prescribing habits. This requires system and individual change.

Medicines Australia should be commended for its efforts to improve transparency; its measures are a lesson for other companies with financial interests relating to the practice and preferences of doctors, including medical devices companies. However, to fully realise the benefit of the code of conduct changes, all information on doctor payments must be accessible via a centralised repository that allows patients and third parties to search for an individual doctor.

Regarding individual change, doctors must take heed of the evidence above and eschew gifts and education funding provided by pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, up to date and freely accessible evidence-based information is available via independent organisations such as NPS MedicineWise.

Greater transparency in the relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies is a positive step to maintaining high levels of accountability and public trust in the medical profession.


Authors


Competing interests


References