Towards Patient-Centered Conflicts of Interest Policy

Document Type : Short Communication


1 Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

2 Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

3 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

4 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA


Financial conflicts of interest exist between industry and physicians, and these relationships have the power to influence physicians’ medical practice. Transparency about conflicts matters for ensuring adequate informed consent, controlling healthcare expenditure, and encouraging physicians’ reflection on professionalism. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Open Payments Program (OPP) to publicly disclose and bring transparency to the relationships between industry and physicians in the United States. We set out to explore user awareness of the database and the ease of accessibility to disclosed information, however, as we show, both awareness and actual use are very low. Two practical policies can greatly enhance its intended function and help alleviate ethical tension. The first is to provide data for individual physicians not merely in absolute terms, but in meaningful context, that is, in relation to the zip code, city, and state averages. The second increases access to the OPP dataset by adding hyperlinks from physicians’ professional websites directly to their Open Payments disclosure pages. These changes considerably improve transparency and the utility of available data, and can furthermore enhance professionalism and accountability by encouraging physicians to reflect more actively on their own practices.


Main Subjects

Supplementary File 1 (Download)

"Watch the Video Summary"

  1. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association website.  Updated October 19, 2013. Accessed July 13, 2017.
  2. WMA Statement Concerning the Relationship between Physicians and Commercial Enterprises. World Medical Association website.  Updated October 16, 2009. Accessed July 13, 2017.
  3. World Health Organization. Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants. Geneva: WHO Document Production Services; 2011.
  4. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
  5. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Related to Healthcare in Developing Countries. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2002.
  6. Muijrers PE, Grol RP, Sijbrandij J, Janknegt R, Knottnerus JA. Differences in prescribing between GPs: impact of the cooperation with pharmacists and impact of visits from pharmaceutical industry representatives. Fam Pract. 2005;22(6):624-630. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi074
  7. Watkins C, Moore L, Harvey I, Carthy P, Robinson E, Brawn R. Characteristics of general practitioners who frequently see drug industry representatives: national cross sectional study. BMJ. 2003;326(7400):1178-1179. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1178
  8. Lieb K, Brandtonies S. A survey of German physicians in private practice about contacts with pharmaceutical sales representatives. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(22):392-398. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0392
  9. Wadmann S. Physician-industry collaboration: conflicts of interest and the imputation of motive. Soc Stud Sci. 2014;44(4):531-554. doi:10.1177/0306312714525678
  10. Vancelik S, Beyhun NE, Acemoglu H, Calikoglu O. Impact of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribing decisions of general practitioners in Eastern Turkey. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:122. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-122
  11. Ben Abdelaziz A, Harrabi I, Rahmani S, Ghedira A, Gaha K, Ghannem H. [Attitudes of general practitioners to pharmaceutical sales representatives in Sousse]. East Mediterr Health J. 2003;9(5-6):1075-1083.
  12. Open Payments. Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  13. Regarding the Transparency Guideline for the Relation between Corporate Activities and Medical Institutions. Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  14. ACCC Proposes to Strengthen New Individual Reporting in Pharmaceutical Code. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  15. Déclarations des Entreprises Ayant Transmis des Données Exploitables. Ordre National Des Medecins website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  16. EFPIA Disclosure Code: Your Questions Answered. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  17. Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (U.S.); 2009.
  18. Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership or Investment Interests, 42 USC § 1320a–7h (2009).
  19. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 USC § 6002 (2010).
  20. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs; Transparency reports and reporting of physician ownership or investment interests. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2013;78(27):9457-9528.
  21. The Facts about Open Payments Data. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  22. Natures of Payment. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  23. Emanuel EJ, Thompson DF. The concept of conflicts of interest. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:758-66.
  24. Committee on Finance, United States Senate. Staff Report on Cardiac Stent Usage at St. Joseph Medical Center. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2010.
  25. Doctors and Drug Companies. C-SPAN website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  26. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290(2):252-255. doi:10.1001/jama.290.2.252
  27. Orlowski JP, Wateska L. The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Chest. 1992;102(1):270-273.
  28. Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, et al. Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(10):e1000352. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000352
  29. Yeh JS, Franklin JM, Avorn J, Landon J, Kesselheim AS. Association of industry payments to physicians with the prescribing of brand-name statins in Massachusetts. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):763-768. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1709
  30. DeJong C, Aguilar T, Tseng CW, Lin GA, Boscardin WJ, Dudley RA. Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meals and physician prescribing patterns for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1114-1122. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2765
  31. Schmidt H, Emanuel EJ. Lowering medical costs through the sharing of savings by physicians and patients: inclusive shared savings. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):2009-2013. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5367
  32. Meisel A, Roth LH, Lidz CW. Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent. Am J Psychiatry. 1977;134(3):285-289. doi:10.1176/ajp.134.3.285
  33. Campbell EG, Rao SR, DesRoches CM, et al. Physician professionalism and changes in physician-industry relationships from 2004 to 2009. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(20):1820-1826. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.383
  34. Rosenbaum L. Conflicts of interest: part 1: Reconnecting the dots--reinterpreting industry-physician relations. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1860-1864. doi:10.1056/NEJMms1502493
  35. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias--the case for careful study. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(20):1959-1963. doi:10.1056/NEJMms1502497
  36. Rosenbaum L. Beyond moral outrage--weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(21):2064-2068. doi:10.1056/NEJMms1502498
  37. Steinbrook R, Kassirer JP, Angell M. Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea. BMJ. 2015;350:h2942. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2942
  38. to physicians: patient beliefs and trust in physicians and the health care system. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(3):274-279. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1760-3
  39. Perry JE, Cox D, Cox AD. Trust and transparency: patient perceptions of physicians' financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42(4):475-491. doi:10.1111/jlme.12169
  40. Pearson SD, Kleinman K, Rusinak D, Levinson W. A trial of disclosing physicians' financial incentives to patients. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):623-628. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.6.623
  41. Hwong AR, Sah S, Lehmann LS. The effects of public disclosure of industry payments to physicians on patient trust: a randomized experiment. J Gen Intern Med. 2017. doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4122-y
  42. Green MJ, Masters R, James B, Simmons B, Lehman E. Do gifts from the pharmaceutical industry affect trust in physicians? Fam Med. 2012;44(5):325-331. 
  43. Klein E, Solomon AJ, Corboy J, Bernat J. Physician compensation for industry-sponsored clinical trials in multiple sclerosis influences patient trust. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;8:4-8. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2016.04.001
  44. KnowledgePanel Design Summary. GfK Knowledge Networks website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  45. KnowledgePanel® Recruitment and Sample Survey Methodologies. GfK website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  46. Documentation for Human Subject Review Committees Gfk Company Information, Past External Review, Confidentiality, and Privacy Protections for Panelists. GfK website.  Accessed July 14, 2017.
  47. Pham-Kanter G, Mello MM, Lehmann LS, Campbell EG, Carpenter D. Public awareness of and contact with physicians who receive industry payments: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(7):767-774. doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4012-3
  48. Dollars for Docs. ProPublica website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  49. PCORI Staff. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute website.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  50. Conflict of Interest Disclosures. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Web site.  Accessed July 13, 2017.
  51. Allcott H, Rogers T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am Econ Rev. 2014;104(10):3003-3037. doi:10.1257/aer.104.10.3003
  52. Bleich SN, Wolfson JA, Jarlenski MP. Calorie changes in chain restaurant menu items: implications for obesity and evaluations of menu labeling. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(1):70-75. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.08.026
  53. Chimonas S, DeVito NJ, Rothman DJ. Bringing transparency to medicine: exploring physicians' views and experiences of the Sunshine Act. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17(6):4-18. doi:10.1080/15265161.2017.1313334
  • Receive Date: 14 July 2017
  • Revise Date: 16 October 2017
  • Accept Date: 17 October 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 February 2018