We recently wrote about ten Canadian pharmaceutical companies that are voluntarily disclosing payment amounts to the general public. Now, the Ontario Health Minister, Eric Hoskins, is thinking about mandating that pharmaceutical companies disclose payments made to doctors.
He made the announcement in mid-June, and will hold consultations before making any decision. Hoskins applauded the earlier voluntary transparency decision made by the ten Canadian companies, noting that “Our system is strongest when patients and the public have access to appropriate information so they can make informed decisions about their health care.” He further noted – perhaps tellingly – that, “[o]ur government is committed to strengthening transparency across the health care sector.”
Not only does this follow the voluntary disclosure made, it also follows an independent review of Canada’s new prescription guidelines by federal Health Minister Jane Philpott. The review was ordered because of revelations that a doctor had received financial compensation from companies that make and market opioids. That doctor was part of a committee of medical experts who voted on whether to accept the guidelines.
Annie Bourgault, head of ethics and compliance at GSK Canada, welcomes the announcement and hopes that it prompts other companies to disclose their payments. She believes that “it’s really essential to build patient trust through transparency.” Bourgault said GSK is ready to release physician-specific payment information, but the proper model of disclosure needs to be determined first. To determine that model, there needs to be input from the government, the public, and drug and medical device makers.
There have been numerous editorials written on the subject, mostly from the viewpoint that the information needs to be disclosed. A recent editorial in Social Policy in Ontario goes so far as to say,
The initiative is long overdue, but to be effective, it must be broader, backed with adequate enforcement, significant penalties for those who break the law, and further conditions for payment transparency.
Sunshine rules only do so much. We must examine the damage done by industry-related financial conflicts of interests on health care, and restore integrity that wins back the public’s trust.
What strikes as odd in this instance is that the authors of the editorial are asking for more regulation, and more penalties, without even knowing what the law will be. It’s almost as though some have the belief that no matter what is done, and how strict/broad the law is, there will always be some critics who don’t believe the law goes “far enough” to “punish” those who break it. Naturally, more regulation is the answer for these folks who don’t believe companies – and people in general – can be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
As far as we can tell, no conferences have been set up by the Minister of Health.