Comments on: Glaxo To Disclose Educational & Charitable Grants

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:54:03 +0000

FPME: So if you were a patient you would review the payouts and decide whether the drug or device is right for you? How would you know whether the payout is excessive or place the payouts into context? What would be an acceptable level and based on what? And, not to forget that a doctor prescribed the drug or device, you would then challenge his/her judgement based on economics or propriety and let that overrule medical judgement?

I understand you have a pharma background and so may know more than most laymen, but even so I cannot see how this infomration would allow you (or anyone) make a sound judgement sufficient to overrule a medical decision.

Besides, who has the time?

By: Former pharma Marketing Exec

Former pharma Marketing Exec — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:54:48 +0000

I am with Dr. Helm obviously.

Christopher,if I was a patient I would visit the websites of the drug/medical device companies that mfg either the drug or medical device I have been subscribed. I would definitely review the payouts - just like the Smith & Nephew website (which they were mandated to do)http://www.smithnephewdpacompliance.com/

If my doctor is getting paid too much money I might want to verify if in fact this is the right drug/device for me. I would be less inclined to just arbitrarily take someone’s word for it.

So, I hope the Glaxo plan looks a lot like this one…

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:34:08 +0000

MH MD: I genuinely do not know whether any other industry requires its members to reveal the level of detail you suggest ie itemised promotional spending by activity and presumably by date. Why would it be good for all to know that? What would it achieve without any meaningful reference point to be compared to? And who would do the comparison and analysis (we know there would be plenty)? Transparency in dealings with charitable organizations is one (good) thing but breaking out daily operating expenses as suggested would achieve little IMO.
C

By: M Helm, MD

M Helm, MD — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:12:36 +0000

If transparency is truly a desired goal, then more important than the (unrestricted)educational and charitable grants would be to know things such as payments to physician’s for services. These would include payments for “advisory” panel members, “Key Opinion Leader” activities, speaker programs, payments for PR services/interviews given, etc. It would even be good for all to know the amounts spent on “satellite” symposia at medical conventions - These are typically “wine and dine” events purporting to provide education, but are thinly veiled promotion/”relationship” building exercises.

So far, revealing only the tiniest, least relevant portions of the promotional budgets hae not impressed me as any genuine move toward transparency. Sorry if I’ve said this before, But the stuff we have seen so far (even if grudgingly revealed as is apparently the case here) barely pays lip-service to the idea of transparency.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:46:15 +0000

Joana,
I agree with your comments. However, Glaxo isn’t just a US company and their activities overseas, teh UK for instance, may not be tracked against charitable tax donations. And I’m not sure all the grants made in the US would be deductible.

I spoke with someone recently who was involved in venture funding at one of the major pharmas (US) and was told that the company gave away millions to universities, hospitals etc but the granting group (the VC dept) had no idea where it went. I agree there should be records but whether they are accessible company-wide is unknown.

Ed, I agree there should be disclosure made where possible for exitising grants ie those still active; again, where information exists.

By: Joana Ramos

Joana Ramos — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:20:36 +0000

Christopher,

The companies should already be maintaining this information as a good business practice, whether they disclose it or not,. And they need to have it in order to claim a charitable tax deduction in their IRS returns.

The US is now behind countries like the UK in its requirements of disclosure of donations made to , and accepted by, registered charitable organizations.

Joana

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:51:44 +0000

Hi Christopher,

I understand there is a cost involved, but if the goal is to be transparent, then undisclosed grants create an unknown even after the inaugural report on February 2009 for an undetermined period of time thereafter.

At some point in the future, presumably all current grants would be disclosed, but until then, it’s really only a partial effort. Not that it shouldn’t be acknowledged as a worthwhile effort, but to do it right, Glaxo could go back and attempt to identify grants that will continue into 2009 and beyond, and list those on its site, regardless of when the grants were made.

Regards
ed

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:43:39 +0000

Isn’t their commitment to start disclosing grants a sufficiently positive step? The cost and effort required to track back and disclose prior grants would be hefty and for what (and whose) benefit? And how far back should they go?

By: Joana Ramos

Joana Ramos — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:30:08 +0000

What will Glaxo actually disclose?

Note that the press release says that Glaxo will disclose grants given, but does not specify if it will just be a list of recipients’ names, or if the dollar amount given to each recipient will also be made available.

As you pointed out, without any history of past granting, isolated information is less useful. Likewise grant financials are needed for genuine transparency .

Joana