Volume 224 - Published ahead of Issue 10
Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Patient Groups in Australia: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Decade of Disclosures
Authors: Ashleigh Hooimeyer, Annim Mohammad, Alice Fabbri, Lisa Parker, Kellia Chiu, Barbara Mintzes
Correspondence: ashleigh.hooimeyer@sydney.edu.au
Med J Aust 2026 || doi: 10.5694/mja2.70294
Published online: 4 October 2026
Published online: 4 October 2026
Abstract
Objectives
To analyse the extent and patterns of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient groups in Australia between 2013 and 2022, including the proportion of groups' income derived from industry payments in 2022.
Study Type
Longitudinal observational study.
Setting, Participants
Australia, 1 January 2013–31 December 2022. Public disclosures of payments to patient groups from pharmaceutical companies who were members of Medicines Australia (the trade organisation for the prescription pharmaceutical industry in Australia) between 2013 and 2022 and from non-member companies with at least five registered prescription products in Australia.
Main Outcome Measures
Value (in Australian dollars) of reported payments to patient groups from the pharmaceutical industry and trends in payments by clinical area and over time. For patient groups that received industry funding in 2022, we also examined how this compared with their total income for that year.
Results
Between 2013 and 2022, 45 pharmaceutical companies disclosed $95.7 million in funding to 390 patient groups. Funding was highly skewed, with 13 groups receiving 47.9% ($45,856,940/$95,724,493) of the total payments. The median funding over the decade was $34,374 (interquartile range [IQR], $8228–$122,898) per group. The total reported payments decreased by $293,246 (95% confidence interval, $125,489–$461,006) per year, but some clinical areas, such as oncology, saw an increase. For groups that received funding in 2022, the median proportion of income derived from industry was 2.2% (IQR, 0.3%–9.3%) and nine groups had over half their income from industry.
Conclusions
Industry funding of patient groups was widespread but skewed towards a small subset of groups and clinical areas. This may shift the focus of advocacy efforts towards certain conditions that align with current industry interests. Although further research is still needed on links between funding and patient group priorities, current disclosure measures may be insufficient to manage risks and access to other funding sources and additional safeguards may be needed to maintain independence.