Author Interviews, Opiods, Pharmaceutical Companies / 23.03.2018
Physicians Who Receive Pharmaceutical Company Payments More Likely To Prescribe Opioids
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_40738" align="alignleft" width="133"]
Vishal Bala[/caption]
Vishal Bala
Senior Quantitative Data Analyst
CareDash
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Prior research into physicians and their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry has typically retained a narrow scope, focusing on how payments may be associated with prescription habits (sometimes limited to specific regions) for specific categories of drugs. For example, Modi et al. 2017 and Bandari et al. 2017 explored these connections in the context of some urologic drugs specifically.
Research conducted by ProPublica in 2016 studied the connection between industry payments and physician prescriptions across some of the largest medical specialties, but was only able to look at “brand-name” vs. “generic” categories and were limited by overlapping timeframes for payments and prescriptions.
CareDash took this analysis further by using Open Payments and Medicare Part D data to investigate the relationship between payments made by individual companies for specific drugs and the prescribing habits of the recipient physicians for those drugs.
CareDash’s main findings are that healthcare providers who received payments for a drug from a pharmaceutical company are 5 times more likely to be high prescribers for that drug than those physicians who did not receive a payment. Physicians are 5.3 times more likely to prescribe a drug than their peers after they have received a payment for that drug from the manufacturer. When physicians already prescribe a drug significantly more often than their peers, they are 5.6 times more likely to later receive payment for that drug from the drug's manufacturer. Looking at the opioid drug class specifically, CareDash found that physicians receiving payment on behalf of an opioid were 14.5 times more likely to prescribe that opioid over alternatives.
Vishal Bala[/caption]
Vishal Bala
Senior Quantitative Data Analyst
CareDash
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Prior research into physicians and their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry has typically retained a narrow scope, focusing on how payments may be associated with prescription habits (sometimes limited to specific regions) for specific categories of drugs. For example, Modi et al. 2017 and Bandari et al. 2017 explored these connections in the context of some urologic drugs specifically.
Research conducted by ProPublica in 2016 studied the connection between industry payments and physician prescriptions across some of the largest medical specialties, but was only able to look at “brand-name” vs. “generic” categories and were limited by overlapping timeframes for payments and prescriptions.
CareDash took this analysis further by using Open Payments and Medicare Part D data to investigate the relationship between payments made by individual companies for specific drugs and the prescribing habits of the recipient physicians for those drugs.
CareDash’s main findings are that healthcare providers who received payments for a drug from a pharmaceutical company are 5 times more likely to be high prescribers for that drug than those physicians who did not receive a payment. Physicians are 5.3 times more likely to prescribe a drug than their peers after they have received a payment for that drug from the manufacturer. When physicians already prescribe a drug significantly more often than their peers, they are 5.6 times more likely to later receive payment for that drug from the drug's manufacturer. Looking at the opioid drug class specifically, CareDash found that physicians receiving payment on behalf of an opioid were 14.5 times more likely to prescribe that opioid over alternatives.
michigan dispensaries
As recreational-use legalization took hold, would medical dispensaries emphasize their identities as medical providers or downplay their medical orientation to compete directly for potential customers? We found that some clusters of dispensaries were more conservative in their marketing, continuing and even accentuating an organizational identity focused on therapy and patients. This was reflected in statements like: “We aim to educate our patients about cannabis treatments and other alternative health approaches to supplement their medicine.” Counties where the majority of voters voted against legalizing recreational marijuana tended to encourage this increasing focus on therapy. Dispensaries that embraced the new recreational market took more risk by advertising to a broader, emerging consumer class, which has been bolstered by a growing tourism industry. These dispensaries de-emphasized their medical orientation and focused more on themes such as product variety and prices. Dispensaries with this more recreational-oriented marketing tended to be in counties that voted in favor of legalizing recreational use. Overall, our research suggests local communities hold a great deal of power in affecting how dispensaries present themselves both to consumers and the broader population. MedicalResearch.com: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report? Response: In states that have legalized cannabis for adult recreational-use and sales, the law often gives local municipalities flexibility in deciding how easily dispensaries can operate within their boundaries. Many counties have chosen to ban cannabis-related businesses. Others are carefully regulating sales and businesses through zoning and taxes. Our research suggests that dispensaries are responsive to the level of concern raised by local community members about recreational-use cannabis. How dispensaries choose to market and present themselves will be shaped by their need to project a positive organizational identity and be accepted as legitimate members of the local community. MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this study? Response: Many national polls indicate strong support for legalizing the use of cannabis for medical and, to a somewhat lesser degree, recreational uses. The progression of state-level legalization has been fast and is likely to continue in the coming years. The overall landscape in the United States is incredibly complex. Different states has enacted different types of state-level regulations, and different localities within each of these states also differ widely in the types of regulations enacted. Future research studying dynamics in different states is needed to better understand how this fast-growing industry will continue to evolve. MedicalResearch.com: Thank you for your contribution to the MedicalResearch.com community. Citation: Co-opt or co-exist? A study of medical cannabis dispensaries’ identity-based responses to recreational-use legalization in Colorado and Washington Greta Hsu* University of California, Davis Özgecan Koçak Emory University Balázs Kovács Yale University https://gsm.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/file-attachments/cannabis_os_final.pdf Note: Content is Not intended as medical advice. Please consult your health care provider regarding your specific medical condition and questions. [wysija_form id="1"]" width="200" height="200" />
