Are We Paying Clinical Trial Patients Enough?

In this episode, Edye and Darshan dive into the controversial but critical question: Are we paying patients enough to participate in clinical trials? And if not, how can we ethically and compliantly pay them more?Key Takeaways:The Coercion Concern Compensation for trial participation is often scrutinized by IRBs due to concerns around coercion. Historically, this concern stems from extreme abuses (e.g., experiments in Holocaust camps) and evolved to include more nuanced forms, such as overpromising benefits or targeting vulnerable populations. IRBs are cautious that financial incentives don’t unduly influence a participant’s decision.But Patients Face Real Burdens Participating in a trial is often time-consuming, emotionally taxing, and logistically difficult. Compensation is not just an incentive—it's a recognition of the burden placed on participants. Yet current payments often fail to account for this.A Global Recruitment Crisis Across all demographics and trial types, the number one reason for trial failure is lack of patient recruitment. Fair compensation could help address this issue—if it can be done without violating regulations.Legal Barriers: Beyond Coercion Darshan brings up beneficiary inducement laws, which restrict offering anything of value to influence a person’s use of a federally reimbursable product. While originally designed for approved treatments, there’s increasing concern that these rules could be applied to clinical trial recruitment efforts as well—particularly when sponsors fund community health services or resources tied to participation.Real-World Examples Highlight Complexity While something like giving out muffins after a visit isn’t likely to raise flags, some site networks market clinical trials in low-income communities by promising access to healthcare that’s otherwise unavailable, which could cross into inducement territory. And this practice is far more common than many realize.Sponsors vs. Sites Sponsors may be unaware of how their budgets are used downstream by sites, but they can still be held accountable. Because sites act as pass-through entities, improper use of funds for inducement can reflect back on the sponsor.Practical Path Forward: A Data-Driven Model Instead of assigning arbitrary amounts, the speakers suggest using data:Average wage in the regionCost of livingLost wages due to trial participationTravel and time burdensA standardized but flexible model could provide equitable compensation without crossing legal or ethical lines.Time for a New Standard The speakers argue that the current standards around coercion and compensation are outdated and inconsistent. With no clear guidance from regulators, decisions often fall to IRBs, who base them on precedent rather than science or patient-centered logic.Conclusion: Most would agree patients aren’t being paid enough for their participation. But increasing compensation isn't just a matter of kindness—it's a compliance challenge. The solution lies in balancing fair compensation with clear regulatory guidance. That means moving beyond fear of coercion to thoughtful, data-informed compensation models that reflect the realities of participation today.Support the show

There are no comments yet.

Please log in to write the first comment.