A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.

Our objective was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK's health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK's Hous...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Emily Rickard, Piotr Ozieranski
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/dbbf646cd9c045b6af3835f91237f684
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:dbbf646cd9c045b6af3835f91237f684
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:dbbf646cd9c045b6af3835f91237f6842021-12-02T20:07:04ZA hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0252551https://doaj.org/article/dbbf646cd9c045b6af3835f91237f6842021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252551https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Our objective was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK's health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK's Houses of Commons and Lords. They facilitate engagement between parliamentarians and external organisations, disseminate knowledge, and generate debate through meetings, publications, and events. We identified APPGs focusing on physical or mental health, wellbeing, health care, or treatment and extracted details of their payments from external donors disclosed on the Register for All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We identified all donors which were pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical industry-funded patient organisations. We established that sixteen of 146 (11%) health-related APPGs had conflicts of interest indicated by reporting payments from thirty-five pharmaceutical companies worth £1,211,345.81 (16.6% of the £7,283,414.90 received by all health-related APPGs). Two APPGs (Health and Cancer) received more than half of the total value provided by drug companies. Fifty APPGs also had received payments from patient organisations with conflicts of interest, indicated by reporting 304 payments worth £986,054.94 from 57 (of 84) patient organisations which had received £27,883,556.3 from pharmaceutical companies across the same period. In total, drug companies and drug industry-funded patient organisations provided a combined total of £2,197,400.75 (30.2% of all funding received by health-related APPGs) and 468 (of 1,177-39.7%) payments to 58 (of 146-39.7%) health-related APPGs, with the APPG for Cancer receiving the most funding. In conclusion, we found evidence of conflicts of interests through APPGs receiving substantial income from pharmaceutical companies. Policy influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry needs to be examined holistically, with an emphasis on relationships between actors potentially playing part in its lobbying campaigns. We also suggest ways of improving transparency of payment reporting by APPGs and pharmaceutical companies.Emily RickardPiotr OzieranskiPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 6, p e0252551 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Emily Rickard Piotr Ozieranski A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
description	Our objective was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK's health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK's Houses of Commons and Lords. They facilitate engagement between parliamentarians and external organisations, disseminate knowledge, and generate debate through meetings, publications, and events. We identified APPGs focusing on physical or mental health, wellbeing, health care, or treatment and extracted details of their payments from external donors disclosed on the Register for All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We identified all donors which were pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical industry-funded patient organisations. We established that sixteen of 146 (11%) health-related APPGs had conflicts of interest indicated by reporting payments from thirty-five pharmaceutical companies worth £1,211,345.81 (16.6% of the £7,283,414.90 received by all health-related APPGs). Two APPGs (Health and Cancer) received more than half of the total value provided by drug companies. Fifty APPGs also had received payments from patient organisations with conflicts of interest, indicated by reporting 304 payments worth £986,054.94 from 57 (of 84) patient organisations which had received £27,883,556.3 from pharmaceutical companies across the same period. In total, drug companies and drug industry-funded patient organisations provided a combined total of £2,197,400.75 (30.2% of all funding received by health-related APPGs) and 468 (of 1,177-39.7%) payments to 58 (of 146-39.7%) health-related APPGs, with the APPG for Cancer receiving the most funding. In conclusion, we found evidence of conflicts of interests through APPGs receiving substantial income from pharmaceutical companies. Policy influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry needs to be examined holistically, with an emphasis on relationships between actors potentially playing part in its lobbying campaigns. We also suggest ways of improving transparency of payment reporting by APPGs and pharmaceutical companies.
format	article
author	Emily Rickard Piotr Ozieranski
author_facet	Emily Rickard Piotr Ozieranski
author_sort	Emily Rickard
title	A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
title_short	A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
title_full	A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
title_fullStr	A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
title_full_unstemmed	A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
title_sort	hidden web of policy influence: the pharmaceutical industry's engagement with uk's all-party parliamentary groups.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/dbbf646cd9c045b6af3835f91237f684
work_keys_str_mv	AT emilyrickard ahiddenwebofpolicyinfluencethepharmaceuticalindustrysengagementwithuksallpartyparliamentarygroups AT piotrozieranski ahiddenwebofpolicyinfluencethepharmaceuticalindustrysengagementwithuksallpartyparliamentarygroups AT emilyrickard hiddenwebofpolicyinfluencethepharmaceuticalindustrysengagementwithuksallpartyparliamentarygroups AT piotrozieranski hiddenwebofpolicyinfluencethepharmaceuticalindustrysengagementwithuksallpartyparliamentarygroups
_version_	1718375333136171008

A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.

Ejemplares similares