» Articles » PMID: 17374816

Pharmaceutical Company Payments to Physicians: Early Experiences with Disclosure Laws in Vermont and Minnesota

Overview
Journal JAMA
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2007 Mar 22
PMID 17374816
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Context: Recent legislation in 5 states and the District of Columbia mandated state disclosure of payments made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies. In 2 of these states, Vermont and Minnesota, payment disclosures are publicly available.

Objectives: To determine the accessibility and quality of the data available in Vermont and Minnesota and to describe the prevalence and magnitude of disclosed payments.

Design And Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available data from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2004, in Vermont and from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2004, in Minnesota.

Main Outcome Measures: Accessibility and quality of disclosure data and the number, value, and type of payments of $100 or more to physicians.

Results: Access to payment data required extensive negotiation with the Office of the Vermont Attorney General and manual photocopying of individual disclosure forms at Minnesota's State Board of Pharmacy. In Vermont, 61% of payments were not released to the public because pharmaceutical companies designated them as trade secrets and 75% of publicly disclosed payments were missing information necessary to identify the recipient. In Minnesota, 25% of companies reported in each of the 3 years. In Vermont, among 12,227 payments totaling $2.18 million publicly disclosed, there were 2416 payments of $100 or more to physicians; total, $1.01 million; median payment, $177 (range, $100-$20,000). In Minnesota, among 6946 payments totaling $30.96 million publicly disclosed, there were 6238 payments of $100 or more to physicians; total, $22.39 million; median payment, $1000 (range, $100-$922,239). Physician-specific analyses were possible only in Minnesota, identifying 2388 distinct physicians who received payment of $100 or more; median number of payments received, 1 (range, 1-88) and the median amount received, $1000 (range, $100-$1,178,203).

Conclusions: The Vermont and Minnesota laws requiring disclosure of payments do not provide easy access to payment information for the public and are of limited quality once accessed. However, substantial numbers of payments of $100 or more were made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies.

Citing Articles

Assessing the impact of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act on pharmaceutical companies' payments to physicians.

Cheng S, Duan W, Zhou W PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0306886.

PMID: 39137232 PMC: 11321574. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306886.


Geographic distribution of general industry payments to advanced-practice clinicians.

Sun Q, Cavallo J, Forman H Health Aff Sch. 2024; 1(1):qxad011.

PMID: 38756828 PMC: 10986193. DOI: 10.1093/haschl/qxad011.


Interaction between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: A scoping review for developing a policy brief.

Zarei E, Ghaffari A, Nikoobar A, Bastami S, Hamdghaddari H Front Public Health. 2023; 10:1072708.

PMID: 36711334 PMC: 9879663. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1072708.


Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives in the United States and China: The Need for Professional Public Space.

Chen X Health Care Anal. 2021; 30(1):35-56.

PMID: 34761311 PMC: 8580741. DOI: 10.1007/s10728-021-00438-w.


Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.

Chimonas S, Mamoor M, Zimbalist S, Barrow B, Bach P, Korenstein D BMJ. 2021; 375:e066576.

PMID: 34732464 PMC: 8565086. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066576.