Journal Article

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

Akihiko Ozaki, Piotr Ozieranski, Hiroaki Saito, Emily Rickard, Shai Mulinari

2023

Overview

Background Self-regulation of payment disclosure by pharmaceutical industry trade groups is a major global approach to increasing transparency of financial relationships between drug companies and healthcare professionals and organisations. Nevertheless, little is known about the relative strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation across countries, especially beyond Europe. To address this gap in research and stimulate international policy learning, we compare the UK and Japan, the likely strongest cases of self-regulation of payment disclosure in Europe and Asia, across three dimensions of transparency: disclosure rules, practices, and data. Results The UK and Japanese self-regulation of payment disclosure had shared as well unique strengths and weaknesses. The UK and Japanese pharmaceutical industry trade groups declared transparency as the primary goal of payment disclosure, without, however, explaining the link between the two. The rules of payment disclosure in each country provided more insight into some payments but not others. Both trade groups did not reveal the recipients of certain payments by default, and the UK trade group also made the disclosure of some payments conditional on recipient consent. Drug company disclosure practices were more transparent in the UK, allowing for greater availability and accessibility of payment data and insight into underreporting or misreporting of payments by companies. Nevertheless, the share of payments made to named recipients was three times higher in Japan than in the UK, indicating higher transparency of disclosure data. Conclusions The UK and Japan performed differently across the three dimensions of transparency, suggesting that any comprehensive analysis of self-regulation of payment disclosure must triangulate analysis of disclosure rules, practices, and data. We found limited evidence to support key claims regarding the strengths of self-regulation, while often finding it inferior to public regulation of payment disclosure. We suggest how the self-regulation of payment disclosure in each country can be enhanced and, in the long run, replaced by public regulation to strengthen the industry’s accountability to the public.

• Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC,BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
• Subject: Case studies / Clinical trials / Codes / Comparative case study / Compliance / Data transparency / Development Economics / Disclosure / Disclosure of information / Drug Industry / Epidemiology / Financial conflicts of interest / Governance for health / Health care industry / Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy / Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy / Health Sciences / Health Services Research / Hospitals / Humans / Hälso- och sjukvårdsorganisation, hälsopolitik och hälsoekonomi / Hälsovetenskap / Industry self-regulation / International policy / Japan / Laws, regulations and rules / Legislation / Management / Manufacturers / Marketing / Medical and Health Sciences / Medicin och hälsovetenskap / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Methods / Payment / Payment disclosure / Payments / Pharmaceutical industry / Pharmaceutical policy / Pharmaceuticals / Product life cycle / Public aspects of medicine / Public Health / Quality of Life Research / R&D / RA1-1270 / Research & development / Research and development / Samhällsvetenskap / Self-Control / Self-regulation / Social Policy / Social Sciences / Sociologi / Sociology / Transparency / United Kingdom