Advancing international comparison of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient advocacy: Focus on Denmark. Issue 12 (December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mulinari, Shai; Pashley, Dylan; Ozieranski, Piotr
• Is Part Of: Health policy. Volume 126:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1256
• Page End: 1262
• Publication Date: 2022-12
• Subjects: Pharmaceutical industry -- Patient Organization -- Transparency -- Denmark -- Self-regulation -- Biosimilar; Medical education -- Periodicals; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Delivery of Health Care -- Periodicals; Education, Medical -- Periodicals; Health Education -- Periodicals; Health Planning -- Periodicals; Public Policy -- Periodicals; Enseignement médical -- Périodiques; Politique sanitaire -- Périodiques; Medical education; Medical policy; Periodicals; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.11.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0168-8510

Abstract

Highlights: Patient organizations in Denmark receive €1–2 million per year from the industry. The pattern of funding resemble other studied countries, including Sweden. Ten companies accounted for 75% of the funding, and one company for 23%. The top donor's funding coincided with policy contentions surrounding one of its drugs. Patient organizations should rethink some close collaboration with pharmaceutical companies. Abstract: Pharmaceutical industry funding of patient organizations raises ethical challenges related to patient engagement in healthcare due to fears of commercial agendas influencing patient advocacy and creating industry-driven inequalities across patient organizations. We contribute to an international body of knowledge on patient organization–industry relations by analyzing all payments reported by companies in Denmark over a six-year period, 2014–2019. We performed descriptive analyses calculating the number, value, and distribution of payments for various units of analysis: all companies and patient organizations; individual companies and patient organizations; and the broader disease area (e.g., cancer) and narrower disease (e.g., breast cancer). Fifty-one companies reported paying €8, 826, 916 to 84 patient organizations. As in previously studied countries, the funding was dominated by a relatively small number of funders and recipients, and commercially high-profile diseases attracted most of the funding. Nevertheless, our study also highlighted the arguably concerning dominance of one company in Denmark, both at the level of overall funding and in funding specific patient organizations, during a time of great policy contention surrounding one of its drugs, the world's top-selling medicine; i.e., switching patients to cheaper biosimilars to save big money for the healthcare system. Patient organizations have reasons to rethink some collaborations with companies, especially during policy contentions, and governments should ensure equitable funding to counteract risks posed by the concentration of industry funding.