Pharma To Report Consulting Fees To Docs?
11 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // March 4th, 2008 // 11:11 am
The Health & Human Services Office of the Inspector General is likely to start requiring disclosure of consulting relationships with doctors as part of settlement agreements with drugmakers in the coming year, according to The RPM Report.
The arrangement will likely mirror what several device makers are now doing. You may recall that, last fall, four medical device implant makers - Zimmer, DePuy Orthopaedics, Biomet, Smith & Nephew - signed deals with the US Attorney’s Office in New Jersey to address allegations they used “consulting agreements, lavish trips and other perks” as marketing and sales tools. So they signed Deferred Prosecution Agreements and made payments of about $300 million.
But that wasn’t all. The prosecutors required them to create lists of all of their outside paid consultants and post it prominently on their websites. You can look here for their lists. And now RPM says the government wants to apply the same approach to drugmakers and their relationships with docs.
Greg Demske, assistant inspector for legal affairs at the HHS IG, told a Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on February 27 that the OIG “is considering requiring similar disclosure requirements in future (corporate integrity agreements) with device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.” (This is his testimony). What’s your thought?
Should OIG require pharma to disclose payments to doctors?
- Yes (87%, 47 Votes)
- No (13%, 7 Votes)
Total Voters: 54
Loading ...
WBP
This will be incredibly interesting. There are so many physicians, particularly the so-called “opinion leaders” that are paid tons of cash for their “advice.” I would pay to see the results. They would really disappoint anyone who looks up to the top-notch medical crew!
Dan
Lets see.. about 40 grand per rep for thier speaking budgets annually. Tens of thousands of reps in the U.S. The results would be interesting, and more than likely end up being a project in creative accounting for what is actually disclosed to the public.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
BRAVO!!!!
This is just exactly what must happen.
This protects the consumer and creates a significant opportunity to remove a large portion of the graft out of the system. Doesn’t this speak to exactly what Massachusetts wants?
Keep on top of this one Ed..
CAB
The results of such an inquiry will truly shock America. The widespead bribing of physicians, particularly the buying of speakers and opinion leaders is absolutely disgusting! Some of these guys are on multiple retainers and make thousands for each talk. They don’t even need to work other than for the Big pharma companies.
Chris
It is so important that we move in this direction. The days when doctors are swayed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking and consulting fees must come to an end. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the OIG approach is the fairest or quickest way to a real solution. This would only require companies signing CIA’s to do it. So it immediately creates an uneven playing field. Now perhaps the pressure would instantly mount on the other companies, but I am not sure. There are companies out there who would be dragged into the gutter befor giving up on these practices. I would rather see the Physician Sunshine Act passed on to see CMS pass rules mandatory for any company that wants Medicare Part D coverage. We need a solution that covers all the big players.
Atlex
Of course, transparency should go beyond manufacturers. Health plans should also be subject to the same requirements. They, too, incent doctors and pharmacists to make or influence clinical and prescribing decisions.
Firstname
For myself specifically, this would be a major breakthrough in searching for the correct physycian to help control my siezure disorder. I’m on a disability for the siezures since my Neurologist began playing games with my medications 8 years ago. I had been siezure free for 13.5 years. All of a sudden, for no good appearant reason, my doctor began switching me from medication to medication. At first, I believed he was actually trying to help with symptoms of fatigue. Now, after 8 years of uncontrollable siezures and being put on a disability, I feel I’m being used as, either a “lab rat” or for some way to line the pockets of my physician. If the money is the case, I believe I should be paid the same amount as my “mad scientist” - doctor and his so called “nurse”, whom, buy the way, have recently gotten angry with me for demanding removal from one medication that they have advocated for on behalf of myself. They advocation was required by the “Bridges to Access” program from Glaxo-Smith-Kline Pharmaceuticals. That was the only way I could afford the $489.00, a month, medication otherwise. Turns out the medication had very bad physical & phsycalogical side effects.I absolutely agree with the diclosure of kickbacks paid to physicians by ANY type of pharmaceutical company.
Govt. programs & Ins. co's, too!
I believe ALL health programs, of any sort, should have to disclose this information. After reading some of the statements made on this topic, I’m wondering! Is this the reasoning behind my being considered a good candidate for brain surgery, one day, by one doctor, and then discouraged from it on another day, by another doctor? The surgery was to remove scarred tissue believed to be the cause of my uncontrolled seizure activity. I never was given a direct reason for not performing the procedure, until I mentioned to my neurologist that I had become violent during the testing procedure. For me, the violence is all a part of having seizures. I had to be removed from my medication in order to cause these seizures to occur. That way, by monitoring the events that occur, the neurologist and their testing assistants could get an idea of what part of my brain the seizures originate from. After my HMO, supposedly, paid for the procedure, I was told by the neurologist performing the testing, that I was a good candidate for surgery. Once returning from the long trip to have the test done, my own neurologist seemed to avoid the topic when asked about it. After some time, I demanded an answer as to whether I could have the surgery done, or not and why. He seemed agitated and said I wasn’t a good candidate. The reason he gave was due to my having to be awake during the surgery, violence was too risky. Cant they restrain me or give me something? Anyway, I believe there has been money switching hands somewhere along the line, at my expense! Discouraged, I feel angry and abandoned! Someone, or something, must help people in my position. Uncovering Kickbacks from all sides would be a GREAT place to begin. Maybe you, your child, friend or relative will benefit from this type of law someday. It is the first step in taking back our government and our insurance companies.
Bob Freeman
Given the lack of compliance with physicians disclosing this information to refereed journals, etc., it’s a rational solution.
Yes, I too would like to see the financial relationships with managed care and PBMs disclosed.
Dan
As well as the disclosure of Group Purchasing Orgnaization funds to the public.
Prescription Project » Blog Archive » RxP Weekly Reader
[...] Pharmalot [...]