Last fall, a bill was introduced in the Senate called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act that would require drug and device makers to disclose the amount of money they give docs through payments, gifts, honoraria, travel and other means.

And just as a watered-down version was revealed, Lilly declared its support. Whether other drugmakers will follow remains to be seen. One reported sticking point - air-tight exemptions for payments to docs who do clinical research, although this appears to be close to resolution. But as part of a settlement last fall with the Department of Justice, five device makers agreed to post consultant payments on their web sites.

Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, a dozen drug and device makers told Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who co-sponsored the Senate bill, they would disclose grants to outside groups. Pfizer is about to do so.

But Schering-Plough doesn’t like to disclose very much. As reported previously, the drugmaker wrote Grassley that “we do not publish or have plans at the moment to publish a list of charitable contributions or educational grants that medical organizations have received from us.”

And in response to the Senate bill, Tom Sabatino, the drugmaker’s executive vp and general counsel, writes that the proposal is unacceptable, because it might undermine the relationship between patients and their docs. “The information is more likely to give patients the wrong idea about the caliber and dedication of their own physician,” he writes, “…and reduce the trust patients have in their health care provider.”

What about trust in the companies that make their medicines? If others can start disclosing payments and grants - however Machiavellian their motives may or may not be - why can’t Schering-Plough take a couple of baby steps? Yet, this is the same drugmaker that wants everyone to believe its explanation for the handling of its controversial Enhance trial. Trust is a two-way street, Tom.

Hat tip to Politico and a belated thanks to Shearlings Got Plowed for the letter