Comments on: Glaxo To Disclose Payments To Docs & Professors http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/ News, Comment and Conversation Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:06:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: harpy http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379119 harpy Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:09:26 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379119 Hi Atlex - yes, I know they've come out in support of the bill. I never said they were stupid, only that if they could show enough reform to make the bill moot they could forestall passage. The new PhRMA Code is certainly stricter than the last but, as I've said before, it's completely voluntary and there are no - make that NO! - consequences for not following it. Which standard would you rather be held to? Hi Atlex - yes, I know they’ve come out in support of the bill. I never said they were stupid, only that if they could show enough reform to make the bill moot they could forestall passage. The new PhRMA Code is certainly stricter than the last but, as I’ve said before, it’s completely voluntary and there are no - make that NO! - consequences for not following it. Which standard would you rather be held to?

]]> By: Ed Silverman http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379080 Ed Silverman Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:40:14 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379080 Hi Chloe, Sorry for not replying sooner, but I was giving a talk. Anyway, you could be right about the fees, but Witty didn't actually say and as I indicated in an earlier comment, Glaxo isn't making anyone involved in this effort available to talk just yet. So I couldn't really decipher this. For all I know, the cap may be designed to apply to all kinds of payments. Hopefully, we'll hear more sooner than later. Regards ed Hi Chloe,

Sorry for not replying sooner, but I was giving a talk. Anyway, you could be right about the fees, but Witty didn’t actually say and as I indicated in an earlier comment, Glaxo isn’t making anyone involved in this effort available to talk just yet. So I couldn’t really decipher this. For all I know, the cap may be designed to apply to all kinds of payments. Hopefully, we’ll hear more sooner than later.

Regards
ed

]]> By: Atlex http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379056 Atlex Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:32:02 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379056 Pharmailliterate, The attachment in my previous comment includes a press report discussing support for Grassley's bill. Atlex Pharmailliterate,

The attachment in my previous comment includes a press report discussing support for Grassley’s bill.

Atlex

]]> By: Chloe http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379055 Chloe Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:18:02 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379055 This disclosure of $150k is for advisory fees. This may be different than the promotional fees that Dr Nemeroff received from GSK that you see in the chart that has been published along with the Emory debacle. Advisory fees are traditionally along the lines of what a doctor receives from Ad Boards, consulting arrangements, such as clinical consulting, etc. This does not include the $3000 per talk honorarium Dr Nemeroff commanded. With this compensation, in one year, this translates to roughly 50 talks or only 25 days away from home as he would ensure he would do at least 2 at a time. We have a whole language that is our own and it's really the media's job to decifer it and realize that this $150K is unfortunately peanuts. This disclosure of $150k is for advisory fees. This may be different than the promotional fees that Dr Nemeroff received from GSK that you see in the chart that has been published along with the Emory debacle. Advisory fees are traditionally along the lines of what a doctor receives from Ad Boards, consulting arrangements, such as clinical consulting, etc. This does not include the $3000 per talk honorarium Dr Nemeroff commanded. With this compensation, in one year, this translates to roughly 50 talks or only 25 days away from home as he would ensure he would do at least 2 at a time.

We have a whole language that is our own and it’s really the media’s job to decifer it and realize that this $150K is unfortunately peanuts.

]]> By: PharmaLiterate http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379052 PharmaLiterate Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:01:45 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379052 atlex Regarding PhRMA's so-called support for the Sunshine Act: (1) Show me that in writing. The PhRMA Code was one place they could have done it and failed. Yes, there have been many companies pleadging to disclose CME grant money and charitables. But the Sunshine Act will require them to disclose Speaker and Consultant fees and that's a very different issue. (2) If PhRMA truly supported it they would be lobbying to see it passed. That certainly is not happening. What really happened is that PhRMA realized that they had no really good publicly acceptable way to OPPOSE it. So the so-called support is really a fear to oppose. So the spon doctors call that "support." It is what it is. (3) Again, if they really believed in it and supported it then THEY WOULD SIMPLY DO IT. Why wait for legislation. They can be transparent tomorrow. We are ready for some company to take a leadership stance. Come on Pfizer show us the list of cardiologists who receive speaking fees for Lipitor. Astrazeneca show us the list of physicians who receive speaking fees for Crestor and Nexium. Come on Novartis disclose the list of speakers for Diovan. Sanofi and BMS show us the list of Plavix speakers. How about it Amgen and Wyeth, since PhRMA supports it I assume we will soon be seeing the list of speakers for Enbrel. Get real. There is no support for transparency or the Sunshine Act. What you have is an industry understanding that it cannot support a position. And they are in a delay game. In two years Lipitor and some of these other products will go off patent and they will never have to disclose the lists of hundreds of speakers making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just think about the companies imposing new so-called caps in the range of $150,000. We need to ask, what were the speakers making before the caps? Yikes. Guaranteed we will never see a list of the speakers above. It will never happen, unless there's a whistleblower who releases them. I repeat. If PhRMA supports it then PhRMA should do it. Now. atlex

Regarding PhRMA’s so-called support for the Sunshine Act:

(1) Show me that in writing. The PhRMA Code was one place they could have done it and failed. Yes, there have been many companies pleadging to disclose CME grant money and charitables. But the Sunshine Act will require them to disclose Speaker and Consultant fees and that’s a very different issue.

(2) If PhRMA truly supported it they would be lobbying to see it passed. That certainly is not happening. What really happened is that PhRMA realized that they had no really good publicly acceptable way to OPPOSE it. So the so-called support is really a fear to oppose. So the spon doctors call that “support.” It is what it is.

(3) Again, if they really believed in it and supported it then THEY WOULD SIMPLY DO IT. Why wait for legislation. They can be transparent tomorrow. We are ready for some company to take a leadership stance. Come on Pfizer show us the list of cardiologists who receive speaking fees for Lipitor. Astrazeneca show us the list of physicians who receive speaking fees for Crestor and Nexium. Come on Novartis disclose the list of speakers for Diovan. Sanofi and BMS show us the list of Plavix speakers. How about it Amgen and Wyeth, since PhRMA supports it I assume we will soon be seeing the list of speakers for Enbrel.

Get real. There is no support for transparency or the Sunshine Act. What you have is an industry understanding that it cannot support a position. And they are in a delay game. In two years Lipitor and some of these other products will go off patent and they will never have to disclose the lists of hundreds of speakers making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just think about the companies imposing new so-called caps in the range of $150,000. We need to ask, what were the speakers making before the caps? Yikes.

Guaranteed we will never see a list of the speakers above. It will never happen, unless there’s a whistleblower who releases them.

I repeat. If PhRMA supports it then PhRMA should do it. Now.

]]> By: atlex http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379028 atlex Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:11:15 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379028 Dave, The reason he has to be truthful to the IRS is that 1099s were being sent by the pharma company to the IRS. Thus, the IRS has an easy means of tracking this miscellaneous income. I'm pretty sure that Grassley's investigation uncovered these payments by reviewing the pharma company records (which would be linked to the 1099s sent out). This is standard accounting procedure. Atlex Dave,

The reason he has to be truthful to the IRS is that 1099s were being sent by the pharma company to the IRS. Thus, the IRS has an easy means of tracking this miscellaneous income. I’m pretty sure that Grassley’s investigation uncovered these payments by reviewing the pharma company records (which would be linked to the 1099s sent out). This is standard accounting procedure.

Atlex

]]> By: Dave http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379025 Dave Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:21:07 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379025 Altex - A very recent post by Ed indicates that the psychiatrist at Emory di not accurately declare how much he was receiving from GSK. If he wasn't truthful with his own university, can he be trusted to be truthful with the federal and state government? It just causes one to wonder how much of the payments are truly above board? Altex - A very recent post by Ed indicates that the psychiatrist at Emory di not accurately declare how much he was receiving from GSK. If he wasn’t truthful with his own university, can he be trusted to be truthful with the federal and state government? It just causes one to wonder how much of the payments are truly above board?

]]> By: BPW http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379024 BPW Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:18:16 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379024 I think the cap should be in the range of $10,000-15,000 rather than $150,000. The proposed cap is way too high, by at least a factor of 10. Let's get realistic. Many of these KOLs get paid by multiple companies! I think the cap should be in the range of $10,000-15,000 rather than $150,000. The proposed cap is way too high, by at least a factor of 10. Let’s get realistic. Many of these KOLs get paid by multiple companies!

]]> By: atlex http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379019 atlex Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:28:05 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379019 FBP, Just because there wasn't transparency regarding payments doesn't mean that taxes weren't paid on those payments. All KOLs receiving payments would have received a 1099 form, with a copy sent to the IRS. Thus, taxes were being paid. The lack of transparency concerns what is publicly reported regarding these payments. Atlex FBP,

Just because there wasn’t transparency regarding payments doesn’t mean that taxes weren’t paid on those payments. All KOLs receiving payments would have received a 1099 form, with a copy sent to the IRS. Thus, taxes were being paid. The lack of transparency concerns what is publicly reported regarding these payments.

Atlex

]]> By: Former Big Pharma http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/glaxo-to-disclose-payments-to-docs-professors/#comment-379011 Former Big Pharma Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:38:57 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=16877#comment-379011 This means very little! Do you really think that Big Pharma will come clean? No way! They should be made to disclose all payments exceeding a nominal amount (> $25000) over the past 10 years. I can imagine that many KOLs have been paid hundreds of thousands, if not millions, by these companies. I've seen it happen at a couple companies. It's downright disgusting! It's huge and much of it is hidden through third parties - "academic research organizations", "consulting firms", or other KOL-owned entities. The taxes and the penalties that the IRS could collect alone should make the effort profitable for the government. This means very little! Do you really think that Big Pharma will come clean? No way! They should be made to disclose all payments exceeding a nominal amount (> $25000) over the past 10 years. I can imagine that many KOLs have been paid hundreds of thousands, if not millions, by these companies. I’ve seen it happen at a couple companies. It’s downright disgusting! It’s huge and much of it is hidden through third parties - “academic research organizations”, “consulting firms”, or other KOL-owned entities. The taxes and the penalties that the IRS could collect alone should make the effort profitable for the government.

]]>