Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-10041205
Aaron Mitchell, Ameet Sarpatwari, Peter B Bach
{"title":"Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?","authors":"Aaron Mitchell, Ameet Sarpatwari, Peter B Bach","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10041205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or \"swaying\" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"47 6","pages":"815-833"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11107028/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10041205","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or "swaying" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
行业向医生支付的费用属于回扣。利益相关者应如何应对?
制药业向美国医生付款的现象十分普遍。在根据《反回扣法》(AKS)确定哪些付款属于非法回扣时,美国卫生与公众服务部监察长办公室(OIG)在不具约束力的指南中指出,影响或 "左右 "医生处方是关键。OIG 特别强调了《美国药品研究与制造商协会与医疗行业互动准则》作为合规标准,该准则规定,允许的付款是指不干扰处方的付款。然而,最近的证据表明,大多数付款都会影响医生的处方,通过增加品牌和低价值药物的使用来推高处方药成本。这些证据表明,许多目前司空见惯的支付行为可能会受到 AKS 的起诉。鉴于这些支付行为增加了患者和医疗系统的成本,减少这些支付行为符合公众利益。本文提出了一系列可供利益相关者--包括行业、医疗服务提供者、监管者和支付者--采取的行动,以减轻行业向医生支付费用所造成的成本增加效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics, and Political Sophistication. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019. Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Why Some Nonelderly Adult Medicaid Enrollees Appear Ineligible Based on Their Annual Income.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1