Lilly Vows To Disclose Global Contributions
3 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 10th, 2007 // 11:46 am
Last month, a few dozen advocacy groups wrote the ceo of each drugmaker, along with Phrma and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations, urging them to disclose their global contributions. The reason? Concern that donations result in off-label marketing by groups receiving funds; mask the agendas of public policy groups that debate policy issues, and allow researchers to circumvent normal disclosure requirements.
In doing so, they cited Lilly’s recent decision to make disclosures, at least in the US. Now, the groups report that Lilly has agreed to expand its disclosure policy on a global basis. A letter from Lilly ceo Sid Taurel states that: “Our intention remains to disclose this information globally, and we believe we will be in a position to accomplish this beginning sometime in 2008.” (This is the letter, although the signature was cut off).
Here’s a response from Robert Weissman, director of Essential Action, which is coordinating the effort: “Disclosure of donations is a small, but important step to remedying the improper influence exerted by Big Pharma through its support for patient groups, continuing medical education and advocacy organizations and think tanks. Eli Lilly is showing the rest of the industry that disclosure is feasible. It’s time for the rest to follow. PhRMA and the IFPMA should work to immediately make disclosure of such contributions the industry norm.”
Dr. Sal Giorgianni
Disclosure of contributions is a good and appropriate thing for any group to do. However, many groups, including some high profile advocacy groups, do not do it. So my first point is what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I also believe that the representation of the signatories to this “letter” was a bit overstated in this report. I counted about 14 individuals with no specific cited affiliation, as signatories. Also, with all due respect, I have to be somewhat circumspect of the gravitas of the coments when a fair percentage of the signatories included groups such as: the Albanian Consumers Association of Tirana, Albania; the Consumers Association of Bangladesh in Dhaks, Bangladesh; the Consumers Information Network in Nairobi, Kenya. Sure the Consumer’s Union also signed the letter but it was the Consumer’s Union of Tajikistan. Ok, Ok such stalwarts of objectivity such as Public Citizen (who I believe does not disclose its sources of funding) and the American Public Health Association also signed. And there were other important players such as the National Women’s Health Network of Washington, DC and the American Student Medical Association mixed in. Point being there are advocacy organizations and advocacy organizations. How all this plays out has important implications and the debate should not be trivialized by the equivilent of ballot stuffing.
Pharmalot is a good vehicle, and I enjoy reading it. But when I see an interesting portrayal of fact about a very important and poltically charged issue reported and played out like this it gives me pause.
I consult with a number of patient advocacy groups who do very important and earnest work that no one else will do and who represent peer-to-peer interests in advocating for sometimes disastrous and difficult conditions. These groups would not exist without help from corporate entities. So sure, disclosure in funding sources is an appropriate thing, just as in any potential conflict of interest area. But trumped up holier-than-thou foot stomping by even credible and relevant organizations should also be viewed through the prism of COI and full disclosure.
SJG
Lisa Van Syckel
What about the Holier-than-thou attitudes of over zealous physicians whose inflated egos, and conflict of interests, who prescibe off-label…. medications that carry a Black Box warnings that maime and kill children.
Whose interests do they serve…….
Certainly not the children……
Ed Silverman
Hi Sal,
I understand your point about full disclosure. And when it comes to any organization, I agree that it’s worth raising, whether it’s Eli Lilly or Public Citizen.
In my last post about this effort, I told my readers that I’d keep them updated if any company responded. And so when I was forwarded Lilly’s letter, I thought this was worth doing. The company took a step toward disclosure in the US, and now says it will do so elsewhere. I thought this was productive and wanted to follow up.
And yes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So perhaps this is a first step for all concerned. I wasn’t carrying water for any advocacy group, however. Disclosure, regardless of who raises this, has been an issue. And that’s the only reason I paid any attention - not to beat up on a company or an industry, or to give a pass to a complainer or accuser.
As to those who signed the letter, I’m familiar with many of the groups and individuals named, but admittedly, I’ve not chatted with the folks from Albania or Kenya. Nonetheless, many of the others have proven reliable over the years and so I was comfortable in pursuing this item.
In any event, I’m glad you care enough to take the time to write. I appreciate your thoughts and the dialogue. And I hope it will continue.
Regards
ed