Senator calls for Mass. clinical trial transparency

By Nick Taylor

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags: Pharmaceutical companies, Pharmacology, Clinical trial, Pharmaceutical industry

Senator Richard Moore has criticised transparency laws in Massachusetts, US, which he claims allow pharmaceutical companies to hide payments made to physicians conducting clinical trials.

Moore claims that since the current legislation only covers payments made “in connection with the company’s sales and marketing activities​” there is a loophole regarding clinical trials.

It is Moore’s belief that the public have the right to see payments, gifts or other economic benefits given to physicians conducting clinical trials and that the state is currently failing the people in this respect.

Moore said:​“Patients and consumers generally have no idea what kind of relationships exist between their doctors and pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers, relationships that result in billions of dollars per year in payments to health care practitioner​.

Any reluctance by the industry to disclose those relationships makes such relationships all the more suspect​. The regulations as currently drafted create a loophole that permits the industry to continue to make payments to healthcare providers with no oversight and no accountability​.”

Moore is concerned that by not closing the loophole Massachusetts is slipping behind the federal government’s transparency efforts and the self-disclosure of pharmaceutical companies. He believes this is not acceptable for a state with “a history of setting the bar for the rest of the nation​”.

Beyond this Moore cites economic and ethical reasons for updating the legislation, citing a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that suggested payments affected the drugs a physician used.

One study found that physicians’ interactions with drug companies correlated with their tendency to prescribe new, branded drugs instead of generics.

A second study suggested that contact with a drug company made physicians more likely to request their hospital stocked the products sold by that firm, even in the absence of a therapeutic advantage over currently available medicines.

These studies suggest that there is a wider economic consequence to payments, which Moore believes is one reason to increase transparency.

In addition, by increasing transparency physicians are more likely to question the appropriateness of accepting a payment, which is recommended by the American College of Physicians and the American Society of Internal Medicine’s joint guidance.

The Senator’s complete testimony can be found here​.

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Laboratory Solutions for COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Laboratory Solutions for COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Q2 Solutions | 10-Jun-2020 | Clinical Study

As a leading laboratory services organization for trials across the globe, we are proud to partner with clients to support COVID-19 clinical trials. Our...

Parents as Gatekeepers for Children with Cancer

Parents as Gatekeepers for Children with Cancer

PRA Health Sciences | 08-Jun-2020 | Technical / White Paper

The RACE for Children Act will require new drugs intended for adult cancer treatment to also be studied in pediatric cancers when the molecular target...

RACE Act Prompts Pediatric Oncology Trials

RACE Act Prompts Pediatric Oncology Trials

PRA Health Sciences | 04-May-2020 | Technical / White Paper

Many providers prescribe drugs off-label to pediatric patients, even though there have been few pediatric trials for many of these drugs. In response,...

Manufacturing Cyto and Non-Cyto Drugs in One Facility

Manufacturing Cyto and Non-Cyto Drugs in One Facility

Baxter BioPharma Solutions | 01-Mar-2020 | Technical / White Paper

Recent market reports suggest increasing product niches, which may lead to decreasing numbers of units per product, making dedicated facilities less practical....

Related suppliers

Follow us

Products

View more

Webinars