(Re)disclosing physician financial interests: rebuilding trust or making unreasonable burdens on physicians?
Recent professional guidelines published by the General Medical Council instruct physicians in the UK to be honest and open in any financial agreements they have with their patients and third parties. These guidelines are in addition to a European policy addressing disclosure of physician financial interests in the industry. Similarly, In the US, a national open payments program as well as Federal regulations under the Affordable Care Act re-address the issue of disclosure of physician financial interests in America. These new professional and legal changes make us rethink the fiduciary duties of providers working under new organizational and financial schemes, specifically their clinical fidelity and their moral and professional obligations to act in the best interests of patients. The article describes the legal changes providing the background for such proposals and offers a prima facie ethical analysis of these evolving issues. It is argued that although disclosure of conflicting interest may increase trust it may not necessarily be beneficial to patients nor accord with their expectations and needs. Due to the extra burden associated with disclosure as well as its implications on the medical profession and the therapeutic relationship, it should be held that transparency of physician financial interest should not result in mandatory disclosure of such interest by physicians. It could lead, as some initiatives in Europe and the US already demonstrate, to voluntary or mandatory disclosure schemes carried out by the industry itself. Such schemes should be in addition to medical education and the address of the more general phenomenon of physician conflict of interest in ethical codes and ethical training of the parties involved.
KeywordsInformed consent Physician financial interest Disclosure Conflict of interest
- American Medical Association. 2013. The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics opinions on the physician as businessperson. Virtual Mentor 15 (2): 136–140.Google Scholar
- Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry. 2016. Disclosure UK. http://www.abpi.org.uk/our-work/disclosure/Pages/disclosure.aspx.
- Blum, J. 2014. CMS Modifies policy on disclosure of physician payment information. http://blog.cms.gov/2014/01/14/cms-modifies-policy-on-disclosure-of-physician-reimbursement-information/. Accessed 22 November 2016.
- Code of Federal Regulations. Title 42 § 425.312(a); 76 Fed. Reg. 67982. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/425.312. Accessed 22 November 2016
- Emmanuel, E. J. 2012. Why accountable care organizations are not 1990s managed care redux. Journal of American Medical Association 307 (21): 2263–2264.Google Scholar
- European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. 2016. The EFPIA Code. http://transparency.efpia.eu/the-efpia-code-2.
- General Medical Council. Financial and commercial arrangements and conflict of interests. 2013. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/21161.asp, Accessed 7 June 2016.
- Gorawara-Bhat, R., T. H. Gallagher, and W. Levinson. 2003. Patient-provider discussions about conflicts of interest in managed care: Physicians’ perceptions. American Journal of Managed Care 9 (8): 564–571.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, P. D. 2002. Strangers in the night: Law and medicine in the managed care era. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Jost T.S. 2001. Pegram v. Herdrich: The supreme court confronts managed care. Yale Journal of Health Policy. Law & Ethics 1 (1): 187–193.Google Scholar
- Kassirer, J. P. 2007. By financial disclosures, we’re fixing the wrong problem. Medscape General Medicine 9 (3): 61.Google Scholar
- Mehlman, M. J. 2006. Dishonest medical mistakes. Vanderblit Law Review 59: 1137–1173.Google Scholar
- Moore, V.1990 Regents of the University of California 51 Cal. 3d. 120.Google Scholar
- Morreim, E. H. 2006. High-deductible health plans: New twists on old challenges from tort and contract. Vanderblit Law Review 59: 1207–1261.Google Scholar
- Neade v. Portes et al. 193 Ill. 2d 433. 2000.Google Scholar
- Oakes, J. M., H. K. Whitham, A. B. Spaulding, L. A. Zentner, and S. R. Beccard. 2015. How should doctors disclose conflicts of interest to patients? A focus group investigation. Minnesota Medicine 98 (1): 38–41.Google Scholar
- O’Neil, O. 2003. Some limits of informed consent. Journal of medical ethics 29: 4–7.Google Scholar
- Pacarini,P.A. 2012. The financial aspects of accountable care organizations. In Pavarini P.A., C.I. McGinty and M.E. Schaff (Eds.), The ACO handbook: A guide to accountable care organizations. Washington, DC: American Health Lawyers Association. (1st ed.) (pp. 17–27).Google Scholar
- Pegram v. Herdrich 530 U.S. 211. 2000.Google Scholar
- Shea v. Esensten 107 F. 3d 625, 629 (8th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
- Sperling, D. 2017. Revising the requirement of informed consent in an era of privatization, managed care and ACOs: Implications for bioethics and the connection between law and ethics. Journal of International Aging Law & Policy, 10.Google Scholar
- Transparantieregister zorg. 2016. Raadpleeg het Transparantieregister. http://www.transparantieregister.nl/nl-NL/Raadpleeg-het-Transparantieregister.
- Trostorff, D.L. 2012. Certification and Licensure. In Pavarini P.A., C.I. McGinty and M.E. Schaff. (Eds.) The ACO Handbook: A Guide to Accountable Care Organizations, 137–158. Washington, DC: American Health Lawyers Association.Google Scholar