Pfizer To Disclose Grants And Charitable Donations
17 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 14th, 2008 // 4:18 pm
Could this be a trend? The drugmaker has posted a list of grants and charitable contributions made in this year’s first quarter to medical, scientific and patient organizations in the US. The move comes one day after Lilly agreed to support a watered-down version of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and two months after AstraZeneca agreed to post info on its US web site about contributions to state and federal political candidates.
In a statement, Pfizer ceo Jeff Kindler utters the ‘T’ word twice. “We want to bring greater transparency to the way we partner with leading medical, scientific and patient organizations,” he says. “Detailing these grants and charitable contributions is an important part of our ongoing transparency drive.” Our thought: Why not list grants and contributions for at least last year and the year before?
You can see the list of recipients here. Of a total $9.97 million in grants and charitable contributions reported for the first quarter of 2008, the largest grant - $3.4 million - was made to the California Academy of Family Physicians in March for what Pfizer calls a three-year national health care professional education campaign to reduce the number of smokers. Pfizer sells Chantix, of course.
There’s 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 dislcosure requirements. Last year, several drugmakers agreed to disclose charitable and educational contributions at the behest of various advocacy groups. You can read about that here.
To bolster its claims of transparency, Pfizer says that, as of 2002, clinical trials were listed on clinicaltrials.gov and began publicly reporting US political contributions. In 2004, Pfizer began publicly posting the results of its clinical trials at www.clinicalstudyresults.org, and in December 2006, Pfizer created a website describing compounds in development. Last year, Pfizer began reporting its FDA post-marketing commitments.
M Helm, MD
This is NOT the transparency we need.
The list looks like a disclose of only the contributions to non-profit/educational organizations. I suspsect this is also a filing with the IRS and will be a tiny offset of the revenue generated in the quarter.
What we really need to see are the physicians/ educators, “key opinion leaders”, managed care/insurance personnel, “patient advocates” and others who recieved cash, gifts, travel, or whatever. We also should know how much was spent and for what (”consulting,” speaking, research funding). That would be transparency.
On the other hand, this is a good PR stunt. I can imagine the ‘pitch:’ “Lets get out in front on this ‘transparency’ thing. When can talk about how important it is for the good of the industry, and back it up with something no one will read, and won’t reveal anything. Then we hope no one notices or asks questions. Win-Win”
BTW, congrats to the CAFP for the $3.4 million education grant - very nicely compatible with the treatment guidelines which endorse Chantix. However, New York City and others have already answered the question of how to reduce tobacco consumption. Higher taxes reduce consumption and discourage smoking initiation.
Will we see Pfizer publicly supporting higher state taxes on tobacco, and public smoking bans? That would be responsible public policy, but it would hurt the Chantix and cardiovascular portfolios. Much better to round up the cows, but not worry about the barn door.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Good points Dr. Helm, and I agree with you.
One has to wonder why anyone would “imagine” that the public would be fooled by this, as you say PR stunt.
It only makes what is missing more obvious…
Paul
I’ll make the same point I’ve made before. What do you people want?
Many on this blog, other blogs and elsewhere have asked for more disclosure. Companies are slowly but surely getting there. Some are doing a better job than others. some of the stuff that used to be done years ago is no longer happening to any significant extent. Give them some credit. Encourage the positive direction and chastize those who are doing nothing or doing bad stuff.
The power of this blog will truly be realized when we see positive change and I think we are seeing some.
HorusCat
M Helm and Former:
1. There has been a major outcry on this site about grant funding and who it goes to. Here’s your answer. Quit bitching.
2. Supporting higher taxes and smoking bans is using the state to mold behavior….of course, that is fair game for “progressives” who believe in the nanny state. Others of us find that directive notable in its omission from the Constitution, along with many other socialist manifestations of Mommy Government.
Jane
I doubt every much this is list is complete and there is not a listing for how much was paid to the APA and other psych related funding. It sure looks pretty though!
John J
ceasesmoking2day - $12 mil from Pfizer over 3 years and SINGLE SPONSORED!! Shame on Pfizer, go Chantix. This is obviously a marketing tool. Why haven’t any other companies/organizations stepped up to support this financially? Haven’t they learned anything from the Polansky lawsuit!
HorusCat
Jane,
If the APA applied for an unrestricted grant, it would be listed.
Why is anyone surprised that the majority of grant recipients will be users of Pfizer products? When a podiatrist wants grant money, he does not go to a company that makes meds for kidneys. When an organization wants its members to stop smoking, they ask for money from any corporation that also has an interest in people not smoking (although in this day and age, Big Tobacco probably also contributed). Obviously, the organization believes that it will save more money on non-drug costs by using Chantix than it will expend on Chantix. So, what’s the problem? Oh, it’s that Pfizer might actually BENEFIT from this.
So, I guess we need a law that says that a pharma company may only give grants to organizations that do not use, have not used, and will not use any of its products. That pretty much cuts the big guns out, since Pfizer, Lilly, GSK, and J & J cover all the diagnostic bases. Why don’t we just say that pharma cannot provide grants to medically-related causes or organizations. Instead, they should fund the Sierra Club, and we’ll get the environmentalist wackos to fund the local MS walk.
M Helm, MD
HCat,
I don’t really care about the “unrestricted educational grants.” Never really have. I’m worried about the money/gifts/grants that come with strings attached. I think that is true for most.
This list did not even include the convention sponsorships that Pfizer gave in the first quarter. I suppose those are a different line on the Marketing budget, and aren’t discretionary (I would guess)like the urestricted educational grants are. They are also many multiples higher than most of the the amounts on the list “disclosed.”
As for taxes on tobacco, and the “nanny” state, I take a pragmatic approach. So far, the “free market” - which by the way I would argue is a fiction in this country and the developed world - isn’t so good about front-loading the future costs incurred by an action today. What I value is fewer people with emphysema (and therefore eligibility for SSI disability), fewer lung cancer patients, less heart disease (which are costly for the nanny state Medicare program), and less asthma burden for children whose parents won’t stop smoking around them. Even without considering the financial costs (which our taxes pay for), the suffering of the people affected is hard to see. Optional taxes - like taxes on discretionary items (tobacco, potato chips, sodas, luxury cars, what have you) - seem like a good way to distribute the future burden. If it leads to a socially desirable change, is this a bad thing?
Without losing the point of my comments. Essentially 1/3 of the “unrestricted educational grant” money could have been justified as a marketing expense for the Chantix brand team.
Any tax accountants want to chime in on whether or not these “grants” are deductible if laundered through a non-profit?
Jane, I agree. It sure is pretty! I like how they give the exact amounts - no matter how small - also how all the listings are alphabetical, not in order of value.
LNT
Way to go HC! Agree completely with you as usual. This program isn’t up to what Lilly is doing — but you have to start somewhere.
Nathan
Woops - sorry HC. I used “LNT” which is my screen name from another site. The above comment is actually from Nathan.
HorusCat
M Helm,
You have good points about the benefits of taxing “undesirable” behavior if what you believe is that the state should take care of the problems caused by those behaviors. I don’t believe the state should be in the business of providing health care to any but the most indigent, thus the costs incurred by overeating, smoking, etc., should not be borne by the state in the first place.
If we acknowledge that the nanny state is here to stay, then I think we need to acknowledge our cognitive dissonance here: a state (little state, like NY) taxes a product or behavior it doesn’t like ostensibly to decrease the use of said product, but it also relies heavily on those taxes in order to fund activities of the state. Also, wouldn’t it be better to make cigarettes illegal, if we despise the outcomes they bring with them?
And where does it stop? Today, cigarettes; tomorrow, McDonald’s? All of these taxes are heavily regressive, also. The indigent use much more of these products that the nanny state would tax. When do we decide that an everyday product (other than meds here) is harmful to the interests of the state and should be taxed? I just read that beta-carotene and vitamins A & E are associated with higher cardiovascular events. Are we going to tax vitamins and carrots? Where does it stop? That is the problem with the Mommy state. You can justify almost anything by saying it is “a good thing.”
As for convention spending, again you seem so focused on pharma marketing. Let’s scrutinize marketing of every industry, incuding the food industry. I am confused because you seem to want the benefits that a robust pharmaceutical industry provide, but you are critical of everything they do in order to market the products they develop.
Matthew Holford
M Helm, MD wrote:
““Lets get out in front on this ‘transparency’ thing. When can talk about how important it is for the good of the industry, and back it up with something no one will read, and won’t reveal anything. Then we hope no one notices or asks questions. Win-Win””
LOL. You’re clearly not a marketing man: after “Win-win,” any regular S&M guy would have said “let’s do squash”!
Anyway, the business model that pharma has developed has many issues that undermine the ultimate quality of the product that it markets. These are many, and well-documented. Influencing KOLs to say nice stuff appears to be one of the elements of this business model. Presumably, a similar methodology is used on frontline doctors (hence the furore over the way that reps operate). All these little things, together with a product with suppressed data on side effects, lead to a scenario where the precise opposite of what is being claimed: patients’ health being undermined by the drugs that they take.
On the other hand “the benefits outweigh the risks”. Except, as I discovered, one is not permitted to know what the benefits are, and the risks only become apparent on a piecemeal basis. Erm, what exactly is it that we’re taking, and taking on trust?
Matt
Solution
Given Big Pharma’s history and recent events, the public wants to see the payoffs! How much money have they given out to the KOLs, consultants, advisors, universities, medical and scientific organizations, and created councils in order to influence prescribing habits? It’s all about the commercial bribes that are rampant throughout the industry! I’ve been in Big Pharma for over 10 years and, honestly, the huge bundles of cash handed out to the above for nothing in return are disgusting. The marketing teams throw around big bucks to but business. People want to know about the graft. Who cares about soem minor campaign contributions? Why is it that Big pharma can’t come clean and really lay it all out on the table? Because what they have done is obscene and they have no intention of stopping. They’re just angling for a little good PR in the face of their horrible reputations.
SP 1
You’ve really hit the nail on the head! This announcement, like AZ and Lilly, is simply designed to obtain some good PR. It’s a hollow statement that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on! The pharma big shots can’t accept that they are held to a higher standard because their industry is regulated. They can’t market drugs like soap products! They need to think more of their ultimate customers, the patients, and less about huge profits. Leave that to the oil and tobacco companies. Conduct yourself in a way that is consistent with the health profession. We need a Hippocratic oath for the top management teams of the Big Pharma companies. First do no harm!
Stapler
Pfizer is doing the right thing by posting its grants for education. People need to understand that there is a difference between drug company marketing programs (sponsorships, advertising, advisory board meetings, speaker bureaus) and grants for independent medical education to legitimate CME providers. Indpendent CME is in the best interest of patient care. Just because it happens to be in an area where the company has a product, does not mean it is biased.
Matthew Holford
Stapler wrote:
“…Just because it happens to be in an area where the company has a product, does not mean it is biased.”
That’s true. But then there is a great deal about the industry that IS biased towards its interests. As such, it would be a surprise if CME provision wasn’t also, and if it is biased, then that is most definitely not in the interests of patient care.
Ultimately, if the industry wants to regain its lost credibility (and, yes, I think it’s lost all of it), then it should, perhaps, consider treating patients less like consumers, to be fought over for market share. There are alternatives (if only in my area of interest, psych drugs), to the Worshipful Company’s products, after all, and those products are looking increasingly like Betamax, to me. At the end of the day, one doesn’t need to convince the industry and its political adherents, in order to achieve change: one may just vote with one’s feet.
Matt
ELD
Let’s get real.
Remove the pharma products. Remove the R&D efforts (whatever percentage spend you argue over, pharma does put the most money into medical science research).
And then where will we be.
Certainly not living to the age we are — with manageable conditions, with some killer diseases of old eradicated.
Mary Poppins said it simplest and best … “a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down”.
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land if you think ANY industry is 100% honest, 100% of the time … same goes for the medical community.
Pharma aren’t in this to make poisons folks … stop being nave about their legitimate right to make profits too. Come down from your ivory towers,