Drug companies reveal info on gifts to doctors

gb123

Well-Known Member
Several big-name drug companies in Canada have begun listing how much money they pay out to doctors, hospitals and health care groups, amid concerns that patients have been kept in the dark about the financial ties between their physicians and the pharmaceutical industry.

Ten large drug companies are releasing information on their websites, listing the millions of dollars of payments made to health-care professionals and organizations, such as hospitals and doctor groups. They have also listed payments made to doctors to cover their travel expenses to international meetings.

The participating companies include:

  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Amgen
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Gilead
  • Eli Lilly
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Purdue
  • Roche
  • AbbVie Corp.
GSK Canada (GlaxoSmithKline), which spearheaded the voluntary disclosure plan, revealed it paid a little more than $2 million to health care providers and organizations in 2016

Merck Canada revealed it paid more than $7 million for health care professional services, and another $2 million to patient groups and health organizations. Roche Canada offered more than $8 million in payments to doctors and health organization groups.

In all, the 10 companies offered more than $48 million in payments in 2016, though not all companies included figures for the entire year.

The 10 drug companies announced in late March, through the industry group Innovative Medicines Canada, that they would begin releasing the numbers, saying they were committed to “enhancing trust by disclosing the payment voluntarily.”

But many prominent pharmaceutical company observers say the move is little more than a public relations gesture and doesn’t go far enough to inform Canadians about the influence drug companies have on doctors.

For example, the companies are only listing their overall payments to health care professionals -- not how much they paid to individual doctors, as is now required in the United States.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the U.S. compels companies to divulge all payments to doctors of $10 or more. Britain, France and Denmark have similar “sunshine” legislation. In the U.S. patients can even access an interactive database created by ProPublica, called “Dollars for Docs,” that lists which doctors and hospitals receive the most payments from drug companies.

Several Canadian physicians want to see that kind of transparency in this country. They’ve formed a group, called “Open Pharma,” that calls on governments to compel drug companies to disclose all payments made to individual doctors.

Dr. Joel Lexchin is a member of Open Pharma and recently wrote a book called “Doctors in Denial: Why Big Pharma and the Canadian medical profession are too close for comfort”.

He calls the disclosure initiative a “very minor baby step” that offers Canadian patients an incomplete picture of the payments issue.

He would rather see listing of all payments to specific doctors or organizations but suspects drug companies are reticent to reveal how much they spend on individual doctors

Lexchin says his main concern is the research showing that doctors are influenced – consciously or not – when they receive gifts or payments from drug companies.

“What we know from research done in the U.S. is that even small amounts of money or gifts are associated with changes in prescribing behaviour,” he told CTV News.

He says doctors often feel obliged to repay drug companies for gifts and that repayment sometimes takes the form of prescribing products they might not have otherwise thought of before their interactions with the drug companies.

“Money creates conflicts of interest,” he said.

Lexchin has other reservations. He notes that the 10 drug companies taking part in the voluntary disclosure represent less than half the membership of the industry group.

He also worries that, because the initiative is voluntary, “companies that disclose payments this year may not do so again next year.”
 

R.Raider

Well-Known Member
He says doctors often feel obliged to repay drug companies for gifts and that repayment sometimes takes the form of prescribing products they might not have otherwise thought of before their interactions with the drug companies.

“Money creates conflicts of interest,” he said.
Well no shit!!
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
Ten of Canada’s largest pharmaceutical companies have revealed that together they spent at least $48.3-million on payments to physicians and health-care organizations last year, a voluntary disclosure that critics of Big Pharma say falls well short of genuine transparency.

The figures provided a peek into how drug makers compensate this country’s physicians for consulting, delivering speeches, sitting on advisory boards and travelling to international medical conferences.

But the companies did not name any of the doctors, nor did they reveal the total number of physicians they paid or the amounts they provided to doctors for running clinical trials.

Read more: The pressure of Big Pharma: Financial conflicts of interest common on medical guideline panels

Even though the disclosures had been planned for two years, only four of the 10 companies provided figures for all of 2016.

One provided information covering just three months.

The minimal disclosure shows the federal government needs to step in and force the pharmaceutical industry’s hand, according to the Toronto doctor behind Open Pharma, a pro-transparency campaign.

“Allowing pharma to go with self-regulation or their own voluntary measures has left us really far behind,” said Andrew Boozary, a resident physician at St. Michael’s Hospital.

“I can’t see anybody really celebrating this as a progressive leap forward.”

Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday that she was sympathetic to that position, but that any move to force the disclosure of payments to individual doctors should be left to the provinces.

“Absolutely, in principle, I think this is an important concept,” Dr. Philpott said.

“I know that some provinces are moving in this area and it’s a conversation that I’m open to having, but obviously I can’t wade into the [provincial] territory of regulating health professionals.”

Pamela Fralick, the president of Innovative Medicines Canada, which represents brand-name drug companies and co-ordinated the voluntary disclosures made on Tuesday, stressed the revelations were only a first step.

“We know that the information that’s out there is not going to be satisfactory to everyone,” she said. “But it starts opening the doors a bit.”

The drug makers released totals of their spending in three categories: Payments to health-care providers for services such as speaking and consulting; funding to health-care organizations such as hospitals; and funding to health-care providers to support their travel to international medical meetings and conferences.

Only 10 of the 45 members of Innovative Medicines took part in the voluntary effort. Each posted figures to its own website, and not always in an easy place to find.

Those companies are: AbbVie Corporation; Amgen Canada Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada; Eli Lilly Canada Inc.; Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc.; GSK Inc.; Hoffmann-La Roche Limited (Roche Canada); Merck Canada Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.; and Purdue Pharma (Canada).

Of the companies that revealed a full year of data, Merck spent the most: just more than $9.4-million, most in direct payments to health-care providers. The drug maker spent a little less than $7.1-million last year paying physicians and other providers to act as consultants, advisers and speakers on its behalf.

Roche Canada was next, spending nearly $8.6-million on the three categories in all of last year, followed by AbbVie ($6.4-million); Amgen ($5.8-million); and Novartis ($4.9-million), each of which reported figures for July to December, 2016. Eli Lilly divulged figures for October, November and December.

Among companies that published a full year of data, GSK spent the least – a little over $2.1-million, none of it on sponsoring travel or paying physicians to speak to other prescribers.

“In my view, [the disclosure] is not good enough, but it’s a good first step,” said Paul Lirette, the president of GSK Canada (formerly GlaxoSmithKline,) which led the push for voluntary disclosures. He urged every life-sciences company in the country to join the voluntary program.

When it comes to transparency in pharmaceutical payments, Canada lags behind the United States, Australia and some European countries where patients can search for doctors’ names on a public database to see if they have taken money from the drug industry. Some in the Canadian industry hope the voluntary disclosure will help persuade the government not to pass legislation compelling them to reveal more details.

Ms. Fralick of Innovative Medicines said that as things stand in Canada, drug companies would have to obtain consent directly from doctors before publishing the payment details – that is the main reason the drug makers elected to release only aggregate figures, she said.

Ms. Fralick said more of the brand-name companies are expected to disclose their total payments next year.

But Matthew Herder, the director of the Health Law Institute at Dalhousie University, said more aggregate disclosures will be useless without specifics.

“Transparency isn’t a goal in and of itself. It has to be for some larger purpose,” he said. “It’s really about trying to affect change in the way medicine is practised.”

With a report from Laura Stone in Ottawa

Report Typo/Error
Follow Kelly Grant on Twitter: @kellygrant1

Payments to physicians and health-care organizations by pharmaceutical companies
In millions of dollars
HCPs
HCOs
Travel
Eli Lilly (Oct.-Dec.)GSK (full year)Gilead (July-Dec)Purdue (full year)Bristol-Myers Squibb (July-Dec.)Novartis (July-Dec.)Amgen (July-Dec.)Abbvie (July-Dec.)Roche (full year)Merck (full year)$9.418.586.445.784.903.833.062.312.131.94
THE GLOBE AND MAIL, SOURCE: companies
 

driel

Well-Known Member
I worked for a smaller pharmaceutical company as one of those reps that would take the doctors out, show them a good time at some expensive restaurant. Others would be sent off on conferences in awesome places like Bahamas. There was all kinds of weird stuff and the team had various reps that could fit the roles of hustling these doctors to write prescriptions. I had a background in pharmacology so I understood the research side of it but the business side would spin their drugs to be some miracle cure for all kinds of conditions that already have proven treatment methods. The money was good but the work felt unethical.
 
Top