Financial Relationships

MedPAC mulls financial relationship disclosure rules

Anne Zieger — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:11:16 -0400

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has started considering recommendations that would require new disclosures regarding financial relationships between drug manufacturers, device makers, physicians and other providers. The recommendations are a sign of the times, as they come on the heels of a growing series of legal decisions, regulations and laws expanding such disclosure rules.

One recommendation would establish a new federal law requiring all makers of drugs, biologicals, medical devices and suppliers, and their subsidiaries to submit data on their financial relationships with various providers. That would include physicians and other prescribers, hospitals and medical schools, professional and patient-safety groups and organizations sponsoring CME programs.

Other proposed recommendations would require hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers to report every year on each physician who directly or indirectly owns an interest in an ASC. Also, HHS would submit a report on the prevalence of financial relationships between hospitals and physicians.

To learn more about MedPAC's ideas:
- read this Modern Healthcare piece (reg. req.)

Related Articles:
Congress debates pharma gift disclosure
NJ mulls pharma, device maker gift reporting
NY bill would require pharmas to report MD gifts
Reader feedback: Is limiting industry gifts a smart policy?

Glaxo to report grants to U.S. healthcare groups

Anne Zieger — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:48:19 -0400

Bowing to emerging trends favoring such disclosures, drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline has announced plans to publicly report the grants it provides to U.S. healthcare organizations. The report, which will be issued quarterly beginning in February 2009, will include grants provided to hospitals, teaching institutions, managed care organizations, professional associations, patient advocacy groups and CME companies. Details will include the recipient's name, a grant description and the amount provided. Notably absent, however, is information on the pharmaceutical firm's consulting agreements with doctors, a source of controversy in many discussions of pharma financial relationships.

The voluntary disclosures come at a time when both state and federal officials are pushing for such. Massachusetts, in fact, has just passed a law requiring drug companies and devicemakers to report payments of more than $50 made to medical providers. Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is sponsoring a federal bill that would establish similar rules.

To learn more about Glaxo's plans:
- read this Modern Healthcare piece (reg. req.)

Related Articles:
Study: Pharma disclosure laws not working
Pharma gift disclosure law wins Eli Lilly support
Drug companies plan to disclose grant funding
Senate investigates pharma influence on CME
Senate questions devicemaker payments to surgeons
Doctors weigh in on the pros and cons of accepting drug/device freebies

Psychiatric group's drugmaker ties questioned

Anne Zieger — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:35:50 -0400

Under attack from Congress, particularly Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the psychiatric field's leading professional organization is being forced to explain its tight financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. The American Psychiatric Association, which got a blistering letter from Grassley questioning its funding sources, will hold a private meeting this weekend to discuss how to deal with public questions over its pharma relationships.

Without question, pharmaceutical funding does make up a significant part of the APA's budget. In 2006, for example--the latest year for which figures are available--drugmakers contributed 30 percent of the group's $62.5 million in financing. Pharmaceutical companies also have strong ties with individual doctors influential within the APA. For example, the group's president-elect, Dr. Alan Schatzberg of Stanford, has $4.8 million in stock holdings in a drug development company.

Meanwhile, data suggests that cushy drugmaker deals with psychiatrists are common. While on industry consulting deals data is hard to come by, Vermont officials recently concluded that in the 2007 fiscal year, psychiatrists got more money from pharmaceutical companies than doctors in any other specialty.

To learn more about this controversy:
- read this piece from The New York Times

Related Articles:
Harvard psychiatrists fail to reveal millions in pharma pay
Psychiatrists getting the largest pharma gifts
Arms twisted, pharma promises disclosure
Docs go cold turkey on industry pay