������

from ������ finds Australian patient groups received almost $96 million in funding from pharmaceutical companies over a 10-year period, raising questions about the influence of industry funding on health advocacy priorities.

Published in the MJA, this is the most comprehensive study to date documenting the extent of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient groups in Australia.

The study found:

-          Pharmaceutical companies disclosed $95.7 million in payments to 390 Australian patient groups between 2013 and 2022.

-          Funding was very unevenly distributed, as almost half (47.9 percent) of all disclosed pharmaceutical funding went to just 13 patient groups.

-          Cancer-related organisations received the largest share of support, attracting more than $24 million, or one quarter of all funding identified in the study.

-          Industry funding has increasingly concentrated in disease areas where pharmaceutical innovation and market activity are high, particularly cancer. This raises important questions about whether commercial interests could influence advocacy priorities, public awareness campaigns or policy discussions.

The patient groups that received the most funding were:

While many patient organisations rely on a range of funding sources to provide support, education and advocacy services, the researchers say the extent and concentration of industry funding warrants closer scrutiny. Additionally, although pharmaceutical funding represented a relatively small proportion of income for many organisations, some groups were highly dependent on industry support.

“Patient groups play a vital role in supporting Australians living with illness and ensuring patient voices are heard in health policy discussions and advocating for better care,” said lead author from Sydney Pharmacy School in the Faculty of Medicine and Health and the Charles Perkins Centre.

“These groups require funding to continue operating, much of which currently comes from the pharmaceutical industry. This can put pressure on these groups to align with the interests of their funders in order to secure future funding, impairing the ability of patient groups to be an unbiased voice for their communities.

“Australia's largely self-regulated disclosure system which only applies to a part of the pharmaceutical sector may not adequately address potential conflicts of interest or ensure public confidence in the independence of consumer advocacy.

Senior author , Professor of Evidence-Based Pharmaceutical Policy at the Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy said the findings prompt calls for stronger transparency and safeguards to protect the independence of health advocacy organisations.

“We’re calling for greater transparency and oversight of relationships between pharmaceutical companies and patient organisations to help safeguard trust in Australia's health advocacy sector.”