IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Five years of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient organisations in Sweden: Cross-sectional study of companies, patient organisations and drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Shai Mulinari
  • Andreas Vilhelmsson
  • Emily Rickard
  • Piotr Ozieranski

Abstract

Background: Many patient organisations collaborate with drug companies, resulting in concerns about commercial agendas influencing patient advocacy. We contribute to an international body of knowledge on patient organisation-industry relations by considering payments reported in the industry’s centralised ‘collaboration database’ in Sweden. We also investigate possible commercial motives behind the funding by assessing its association with drug commercialisation. Methods: Our primary data source were 1,337 payment reports from 2014–2018. After extraction and coding, we analysed the data descriptively, calculating the number, value and distribution of payments for various units of analysis, e.g. individual companies, diseases and payment goals. The association between drug commercialisation and patient organisation funding was assessed by, first, the concordance between leading companies marketing drugs in specific diseases and their funding of corresponding patient organisations and, second, the correlation between new drugs in broader condition areas and payments to corresponding patient organisations. Results: 46 companies reported paying €6,449.224 (median €2,411; IQR €1,024–4,569) to 77 patient organisations, but ten companies provided 67% of the funding. Small payments dominated, many of which covered costs of events organised by patient organisations. An association existed between drug commercialisation and industry funding. Companies supported patient organisations in diseases linked to their drug portfolios, with the top 3 condition areas in terms of funding–cancer; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders; and infectious and parasitic disorders–accounting for 63% of new drugs and 56% of the funding. Conclusion: This study reveals close and widespread ties between patient organisations and drug companies. A relatively few number of companies dominated the funding landscape by supporting patient organisations in disease areas linked to their drug portfolios. This commercially motivated funding may contribute to inequalities in resource and influence between patient organisations. The association between drug commercialisation and industry funding is also worrying because of the therapeutic uncertainty of many new drugs. Our analysis benefited from the existence of a centralised database of payments–which should be adopted by other countries too–but databases should be downloadable in an analysable format to permit efficient and independent analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Shai Mulinari & Andreas Vilhelmsson & Emily Rickard & Piotr Ozieranski, 2020. "Five years of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient organisations in Sweden: Cross-sectional study of companies, patient organisations and drugs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235021
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235021&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susanna Priolo & Andras Fehervary & Phil Riggins & Kathy Redmond, 2012. "Assessing Stakeholder Opinion on Relations between Cancer Patient Groups and Pharmaceutical Companies in Europe," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(2), pages 127-139, June.
    2. Ferrario, Alessandra & Kanavos, Panos, 2015. "Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: A comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 39-47.
    3. Hemminki, Elina & Toiviainen, Hanna K. & Vuorenkoski, Lauri, 2010. "Co-operation between patient organisations and the drug industry in Finland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1171-1175, April.
    4. Rothman, S.M. & Raveis, V.H. & Friedman, A. & Rothman, D.J., 2011. "Health advocacy organizations and the pharmaceutical industry: an analysis of disclosure practices," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(4), pages 602-609.
    5. Hoekman, Jarno & Boon, Wouter, 2019. "Changing standards for drug approval: A longitudinal analysis of conditional marketing authorisation in the European Union," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 76-83.
    6. Cinzia Colombo & Paola Mosconi & Walter Villani & Silvio Garattini, 2012. "Patient Organizations’ Funding from Pharmaceutical Companies: Is Disclosure Clear, Complete and Accessible to the Public? An Italian Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-8, May.
    7. Grundy, Quinn & Habibi, Roojin & Shnier, Adrienne & Mayes, Christopher & Lipworth, Wendy, 2018. "Decoding disclosure: Comparing conflict of interest policy among the United States, France, and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(5), pages 509-518.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mulinari, Shai & Pashley, Dylan & Ozieranski, Piotr, 2022. "Advancing international comparison of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient advocacy: Focus on Denmark," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(12), pages 1256-1262.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rickard, Emily & Ozieranski, Piotr & Mulinari, Shai, 2019. "Evaluating the transparency of pharmaceutical company disclosure of payments to patient organisations in the UK," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1244-1250.
    2. Mulinari, Shai & Pashley, Dylan & Ozieranski, Piotr, 2022. "Advancing international comparison of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient advocacy: Focus on Denmark," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(12), pages 1256-1262.
    3. Cinzia Colombo & Paola Mosconi & Walter Villani & Silvio Garattini, 2012. "Patient Organizations’ Funding from Pharmaceutical Companies: Is Disclosure Clear, Complete and Accessible to the Public? An Italian Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-8, May.
    4. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    5. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    6. Toon van der Gronde & Carin A Uyl-de Groot & Toine Pieters, 2017. "Addressing the challenge of high-priced prescription drugs in the era of precision medicine: A systematic review of drug life cycles, therapeutic drug markets and regulatory frameworks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-34, August.
    7. Sabine Vogler & Valérie Paris & Alessandra Ferrario & Veronika J. Wirtz & Kees Joncheere & Peter Schneider & Hanne Bak Pedersen & Guillaume Dedet & Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar, 2017. "How Can Pricing and Reimbursement Policies Improve Affordable Access to Medicines? Lessons Learned from European Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 307-321, June.
    8. Baggott, Rob & Jones, Kathryn, 2014. "The voluntary sector and health policy: The role of national level health consumer and patients' organisations in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 202-209.
    9. Shuli Brammli-Greenberg & Ira Yaari & Elad Daniels & Ariella Adijes-Toren, 2021. "How Managed Entry Agreements can improve allocation in the public health system: a mechanism design approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 699-709, July.
    10. Britten, Nicky & Denford, Sarah & Harris-Golesworthy, Faith & Jibson, Steph & Pyart, Nigel & Stein, Ken, 2015. "Patient involvement in drug licensing: A case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 289-296.
    11. Sabine Vogler, 2019. "Fair prices for medicines? Exploring competent authorities’ and public payers’ preferences on pharmaceutical policies," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 46(3), pages 443-469, August.
    12. Christensen, Elisabeth & Hirsch, Niels Christian & Andersen, Jonas Valbjørn & Ehlers, Lars Holger, 2022. "The analogue substitution model: Introducing competition in the absence of generic substitution in Danish hospitals," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 844-852.
    13. Jae Ho Jung & Dae Jung Kim & Kangho Suh & Jaeeun You & Je Ho Lee & Kyung In Joung & Dong Churl Suh, 2021. "International Price Comparisons of Anticancer Drugs: A Scheme for Improving Patient Accessibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    15. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Collette Sosnowy, 2014. "Practicing Patienthood Online: Social Media, Chronic Illness, and Lay Expertise," Societies, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Seung-Lai Yoo & Dae-Jung Kim & Seung-Mi Lee & Won-Gu Kang & Sang-Yoon Kim & Jong Hyuk Lee & Dong-Churl Suh, 2019. "Improving Patient Access to New Drugs in South Korea: Evaluation of the National Drug Formulary System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Rachel Thompson & Zoe Paskins & Barry G. Main & Thaddeus Mason Pope & Evelyn C. Y. Chan & Ben W. Moulton & Michael J. Barry & Clarence H. Braddock III, 2021. "Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 768-779, October.
    19. Veronika Kalouguina & Joël Wagner, 2020. "Challenges and Solutions for Integrating and Financing Personalized Medicine in Healthcare Systems: A Systematic Literature Review," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, November.
    20. Löblová, Olga & Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Kaló, Zoltán & King, Lawrence & McKee, Martin, 2019. "Alternative access schemes for pharmaceuticals in Europe: Towards an emerging typology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 630-634.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.