In a long overdue move, Lilly today will release a report detailing the grant money given to non-profit groups and educational institutions. In this year’s first quarter, for instance, the drugmaker gave $11.8 million to universities, foundations devoted to disease research and awareness, and companies that are in the continuing education business.

For instance, the largest single grant was $825,000 to Massachusetts General Hospital’s psychiatry department for a year-long educational program with more than 150,000 registrants. And the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, an advocacy group for patients, received $544,500. Of that, $450,000 went to fund a project called “Campaign for the Mind of America.”

Some grants went to for-profit education companies. Optima Educational Solutions, based in Arlington Heights, Ill., received nearly $75,000 for a project called “Current Strategies and Needs for Managing the Critically Ill Patient with Diabetes.” Lilly’s drugs include the Zyprexa schizophrenia pill and the Byetta diabetes drug.

Despite taking this step, Lilly continues to sound disingenous by insisting there’s no connection between grants and marketing drugs. “These grants are first and foremost designed to improve patient care, and they are unsolicited,” says Alan Breier, Lilly’s chief medical officer, whose division oversees the grant office. “We desire to be a reliable and trusted partner and transparency is a critical aspect of trust.”

Grant money is a key source of controversy. Critics say drugmakers lavish money on individuals and institutions to line up support for specific meds, and do so without proper checks and balances. Last week, for instance, a Senate finance committee report accused big pharma of taking steps to separate marketing from educational grants, but still not doing enough to oversee the flow of money, which can result in kickbacks and off-label promotion.

And industry funding of non-profits is another flashpoint as these groups mount grassroots campaigns to raise disease awareness and research funding, but are regularly accused of acting like stalking horses for pharma marketing departments.

Some Lilly exec worried that revealing grants could expose recipients to criticism and bring more scrutiny. But Lilly decided to do so after an internal analysis showed the marketing department wasn’t influencing the grant office’s decisions, says Michael Bigelow, Lilly’s assistant general counsel. Lilly shouldn’t have to feel “apologetic” about the grants, he tells The Wall Street Jounal.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who’s the ranking Republican on the Senate finance committee, says “Eli Lilly’s action is a positive step, and I hope other drug companies will do the same thing.”

Only a handful of drug companies have begun revealing funding details, and it’s not clear how many others will follow, but they should. Nonetheless, one critic says that disclosure won’t change the fact that drugmakers are now important benefactors of education, especially continuing education for physicians. “Drug companies are not educational institutions,” says Eric Campbell, assistant professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. “They’re beholden to stockholders and exist to develop and sell drugs.”

In one way, though, Lilly’s effort doesn’t go far enough. Many doctors also receive grant money directly for what is often described as participation in a speaker’s bureau. But such grants may also be thinly disguised rewards for high prescribing of newer and more expensive drugs, or a way to influence off-label use. Drugmakers may complain that providing such detail is laborious, but if transparency is truly the goal, then this info should also be fully disclosed.

Further reading….
The Wall Street Journal (subscription required);
Lilly press release.[tags]Continuing Medical Education, Eli Lilly, Grants[/tags]