Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Regulating pharmaceutical companies' financial largesse.

Ronen Avraham1,2, Charles Silver3

  • 1The Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Ronen3112@gmail.com.

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
|May 16, 2018
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pricing and Paying for Cancer Drugs: Policy Options for Fixing A Broken System.

Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.)·2020
Same author

Why are we Being Overcharged for Pharmaceuticals? What Should We Do About It?

The Journal of legal medicine·2019
Same author

RNA-Seq following PCR-based sorting reveals rare cell transcriptional signatures.

BMC genomics·2016
Same author

Response.

Chest·2013
Same author

Five myths of medical malpractice.

Chest·2013
Same author

The poor state of health care quality in the U.S.: is malpractice liability part of the problem or part of the solution?

Cornell law review·2005

Despite a 2010 law mandating transparency in pharmaceutical payments to physicians, its effectiveness is limited. Loopholes and lack of awareness hinder its impact on healthcare conflicts of interest.

Area of Science:

  • Health Policy and Law
  • Medical Ethics
  • Pharmaceutical Industry Regulation

Background:

  • A 2010 amendment to Israel's National Health Insurance Law mandates annual reporting of payments from pharmaceutical companies (PCs) to healthcare professionals and organizations.
  • The law aimed to enhance transparency and regulate potential conflicts of interest arising from financial relationships between PCs and physicians.
  • Previous research by Nissanholtz-Gannot and Yenkellevich (NGY) explored stakeholder perceptions of this amendment's impact.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically review the findings of the NGY study on the impact of the 2010 Israeli law regarding pharmaceutical payments.
  • To assess the actual increase in transparency for patients and evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented regulations.
  • To propose alternative strategies for enhancing patient oversight and mitigating conflicts of interest.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

  • Critical analysis of the NGY study, which utilized interviews with various stakeholders.
  • Examination of government reporting data to assess transparency levels concerning individual physicians versus institutions.
  • Literature review and policy analysis to evaluate regulatory effectiveness and propose patient-centric solutions.

Main Results:

  • The 2010 amendment has not significantly increased transparency for patients, as reports often obscure individual physician financial ties.
  • Awareness of the amendment is low, particularly among physicians, and perceived loopholes limit its practical effectiveness.
  • Improvements in transparency culture appear driven more by international pressure on multinational PCs than by the Israeli legislation itself.

Conclusions:

  • Skepticism regarding the efficacy of self-regulation and current government oversight mechanisms in addressing pharmaceutical industry influence.
  • The current legal framework fails to provide adequate transparency to patients regarding financial relationships in healthcare.
  • Recommendations include facilitating class actions for fiduciary duty enforcement and restructuring drug co-payments to highlight relative efficacy.