Customise Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorised as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyse the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customised advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyse the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Debating Transparency Beyond Consent Rates – Part II

The approach towards data privacy in the EU makes consideration towards consent revocation an imperative.

If a physician revokes consent, individual versus aggregate spend figures need to be recalculated, and they will show the corresponding changes. Thus, historical consent rate figures may not be an accurate indicator of transparency in that specific market or even attitude shifts toward transparency.

Interest groups that don’t examine consent from this angle tend to make hasty judgments on transparency.

The fourth estate is a repeat offender, often citing (or misrepresenting) published data as a way of drawing public attention to “Big Pharma’s Big Money.”

Not only does this present a distorted view of pharmaceutical spend activity to the public, but it also discourages relatively open HCPs from allowing their TOVs to be published in non-aggregate.

Situations like these look like Catch-22 decisions for well-meaning but discrete stakeholders, the public sector being one.

Should the government get involved in the “disclose/don’t disclose” decision? This would, of course, also answer the question of whether disclosure should be voluntary or state mandated.

Consent (in most markets across the EU) is still to be provided of free will. Mandatory publication would take this right away from HCPs, as has been the case in Spain.

And finally, what is often overlooked in the consent debate is who is responsible for consent management. Team qordata works with pharmaceutical companies (drug and device manufacturers) across the globe, and it can testify that such organizations work very hard to collect and maintain HCP publication consent.

An inability to get timely consent isn’t always the pharmaceutical company’s fault. Especially when some physicians withhold consent because they simply have a right to.

The ‘peer effect’ also comes into play. Some physicians may be willing and driven to contribute to pharmaceutical transparency efforts. But might get discouraged after observing how few (or none) of their colleagues agree with them in the publication debate.

Consent limits and consent revocation also stand in the way of making these figures standalone measures of transparency. This has led to the phenomenon of ‘No Consent/No Contract’, which we will discuss in subsequent qordata publications.

Related Articles