IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0186060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of pharmaceutical marketing on Medicare prescriptions in the District of Columbia

Author

Listed:
  • Susan F Wood
  • Joanna Podrasky
  • Meghan A McMonagle
  • Janani Raveendran
  • Tyler Bysshe
  • Alycia Hogenmiller
  • Adriane Fugh-Berman

Abstract

Importance: Gifts from pharmaceutical companies are believed to influence prescribing behavior, but few studies have addressed the association between industry gifts to physicians and drug costs, prescription volume, or preference for generic drugs. Even less research addresses the effect of gifts on the prescribing behavior of nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and podiatrists. Objective: To analyze the association between gifts provided by pharmaceutical companies to individual prescribers in Washington DC and the number of prescriptions, cost of prescriptions, and proportion of branded prescriptions for each prescriber. Design: Gifts data from the District of Columbia’s (DC) AccessRx program and the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program were analyzed with claims data from the CMS 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data. Setting: Washington DC, 2013 Participants: Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, and other licensed Medicare Part D prescribers who participated in Medicare Part D (a Federal prescription drug program that covers patients over age 65 or who are disabled). Exposure(s): Gifts to healthcare prescribers (including cash, meals, and ownership interests) from pharmaceutical companies. Main outcomes and measures: Average number of Medicare Part D claims per prescriber, number of claims per patient, cost per claim, and proportion of branded claims. Results: In 2013, 1,122 (39.1%) of 2,873 Medicare Part D prescribers received gifts from pharmaceutical companies totaling $3.9 million in 2013. Compared to non-gift recipients, gift recipients prescribed 2.3 more claims per patient, prescribed medications costing $50 more per claim, and prescribed 7.8% more branded drugs. In six specialties (General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Obstetrics/Gynecology, Urology, Ophthalmology, and Dermatology), gifts were associated with a significantly increased average cost of claims. For Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Ophthalmology, gifts were associated with more branded claims. Gift acceptance was associated with increased average cost per claim for PAs and NPs. Gift acceptance was also associated with higher proportion of branded claims for PAs but not NPs. Physicians who received small gifts (less than $500 annually) had more expensive claims ($114 vs. $85) and more branded claims (30.3% vs. 25.7%) than physicians who received no gifts. Those receiving large gifts (greater than $500 annually) had the highest average costs per claim ($189) and branded claims (39.9%) than other groups. All differences were statistically significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • Susan F Wood & Joanna Podrasky & Meghan A McMonagle & Janani Raveendran & Tyler Bysshe & Alycia Hogenmiller & Adriane Fugh-Berman, 2017. "Influence of pharmaceutical marketing on Medicare prescriptions in the District of Columbia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186060
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186060
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186060&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0186060?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. Roy H Perlis & Clifford S Perlis, 2016. "Physician Payments from Industry Are Associated with Greater Medicare Part D Prescribing Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Mather, Charles, 2005. "The pipeline and the porcupine: alternate metaphors of the physician-industry relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1323-1334, March.
    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. Ansari, Bahareh, 2021. "Industry payments and physicians prescriptions: Effect of a payment restriction policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    2. Wojciech Stefan Zgliczyński & Jarosław Bartosiński & Olga Maria Rostkowska, 2022. "Knowledge and Practice of Antibiotic Management and Prudent Prescribing among Polish Medical Doctors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Christian Guy-Coichard & Gabriel Perraud & Anne Chailleu & Véronique Gaillac & Paul Scheffer & Barbara Mintzes, 2019. "Inadequate conflict of interest policies at most French teaching hospitals: A survey and website analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, November.

    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. Anju Murayama & Sae Kamamoto & Hiroaki Saito & Kohki Yamada & Divya Bhandari & Iori Shoji & Hanano Mamada & Moe Kawashima & Erika Yamashita & Eiji Kusumi & Toyoaki Sawano & Binaya Sapkota & Tetsuya Ta, 2022. "Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-13, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Ozaki, Akihiko & Saito, Hiroaki & Senoo, Yuki & Sawano, Toyoaki & Shimada, Yuki & Kobashi, Yurie & Yamamoto, Kana & Suzuki, Yosuke & Tanimoto, Tetsuya, 2020. "Overview and transparency of non-research payments to healthcare organizations and healthcare professionals from pharmaceutical companies in Japan: Analysis of payment data in 2016," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 727-735.
    4. Sismondo, Sergio, 2008. "How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1909-1914, May.
    5. Thomas Lebesmuehlbacher & Rhet A. Smith, 2021. "The effect of medical cannabis laws on pharmaceutical marketing to physicians," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2409-2436, September.
    6. Ansari, Bahareh, 2021. "Industry payments and physicians prescriptions: Effect of a payment restriction policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    7. Waqas Haque & Abu Minhajuddin & Arjun Gupta & Deepak Agrawal, 2018. "Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.

    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:pone00:0186060. 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.