Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Certificated Hematologists: A Retrospective Analysis of Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

Abstract

Background: A growing and significant financial relationship exist between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. However, little is known about the characteristics and trends of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to hematologists. This study was aimed to evaluate the financial relationship between hematology specialists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019. Methods: Descriptive analyses were performed to evaluate personal payments from 92 major pharmaceutical companies to all board-certificated hematologists in Japan. Furthermore, trend of payments over four years were evaluated by generalized estimating equations. Results: Among the 4,183 hematology specialists, 2,706 (64.7%) received a total of US$36,291,434. The personal payments were worth $13,411 (standard deviation: $34,856) on average, with a median of $2,471 (Interquartile range: $851-$9,677) over the four-year period, respectively. Only the top 10% of specialists accounted for 76.8% of the total payments. The average payment values constantly increased from $4,259 to $5,574 between 2016 and 2019, with a significant mean annual increase rate of 11.2% (95%CI: 9.1-13.4%). The proportion of hematology specialists with payments also slightly increased by 1.8% (95%CI: 0.6-3.0%) per year. Conclusions: Most Japanese board-certified hematology specialists received substantial personal payments. These payments are becoming increasingly more prevalent and greater among hematology specialists.

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

“…Although the prevalence of specialists with payments were similar to the previous findings, ranging from 62.0% among hematologists to 70.6% among medical oncologists [3,4,15,23], payment values per specialist among the infectious disease specialists ($3,183 in median four-year combined payments and $1,430-$1,720 in median single-year payments) were higher than all of the available evidence among pediatric oncologists ($2,961 in average) [23], pulmonologists ($2,210 in median) [3], hematologists ($2,471 in median) [23], and medical oncologists ($1,103 in one-year median) [15] in Japan. Overall, compared to the previous studies, Japanese infectious disease specialists have higher financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.…”

“…Kusumi et al found that the pharmaceutical companies increasingly prioritized the payments to hematologists in Japan, with a 11.2% annual increase in payments per specialist. [4] Also, similar trends were observed by Murayama et al among Japanese pulmonologists, with 7.8% annual increase in payments. [3] Our finding was different from these studies, indicating that the financial relationships among infectious disease specialists and pharmaceutical companies did not decline nor increase, but remained stable for the last four years.…”

“…Thus, the average and median payments for each year and the trend of payments were calculated based on payments from all 92 companies and 74 companies with payment data for the four years between 2016 and 2019, as previously described. [3,4,23] Finally, we assessed association between number of drugs with new or additional indications and (1) total payments and (2) number of specialists with payments on company level using the Spearman's correlation. Japanese yen (¥) was converted into US dollars ($) using 2019 average monthly exchange rates of ¥109.0 per $1.…”

“…Thus, the average and median payments for each year and the trend of payments were calculated based on payments from all 92 companies and 74 companies with payment data for the four years between 2016 and 2019, as previously described. [3, 4, 23]…”

“…[1,2] Consequently, previous studies utilizing these data have demonstrated that there were substantial financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies. [3][4][5][6][7] Among several specialties, infectious disease is one where there is a greatest concern about the influence from pharmaceutical companies. As in the case of Lyme disease guideline issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the guideline chair and authors manipulated the guideline recommendations and statements for the benefits of testing and insurance companies, leading to inadmissible harms on the patients in the US.…”