Why? The report warns that Australia faces a diabetes “disaster,” and some experts say it could be seen as a marketing push to win public subsidies for a new medicine, The Australian reports.

The report warns an estimated 1.6 million Australians will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes by 2050, and the disease will cost the country $14 billion a year. Compiled by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra, the report says more than 270,000 heart bypass operations on type 2 diabetic patients by 2050, and patients will suffer more than 250,000 strokes and 750,000 kidney complications.

A release detailing the findings said while the findings were “alarming”, they “confirm effective and broader measures implemented now will reduce suffering in those living with the disease and generate significant economic gains by containing costs to the health system.” The report was compiled with assistance and support from seven organizations, including the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Diabetes Australia and the Pharmacy Guild.

The report is the first attempt to project the likely shortfall between patients’ outcomes, such as their blood glucose levels, and the targets set in official guidelines - and also attempts to compare improvements different treatments might offer. But some experts question the role played by Lilly, which commissioned the report from NATSEM and hired a PR agency to circulate the findings. Lilly, of course, also sells Byetta, a type 2 diabetes drug.

While the report names Byetta only in a footnote, it finds the class of drugs to which it belongs could greatly improve diabetic patients more than other interventions, such as greater exercise or more sensible use of existing meds, the paper writes. Last year, Byetta was recommended for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme inclusion, although the federal government has yet to respond.

Meanwhile, Byetta remains available only on private prescription, at a cost of $200 a patient a month, and only a handful use it as a result. Jon Jureidini, a campaigner against pharmaceutical company influence on medical research and education, said Eli Lilly runs a risk that the findings might be perceived as tainted.

“If someone came to me with this proposal, I wouldn’t want a pharmaceutical company contributing to the study in any way,” Jureidini tells the paper. “I would want to be absolutely clear that the study is being carried out on the benefits to diabetic people, and not (benefits to) someone who wants to profit out of the policies.”

NATSEM and others involved in the study strongly defended the integrity of the research, saying the projected increase in type 2 diabetes was a legitimate concern. NATSEM research director Laurie Brown tells the paper that any perception of commercial taint from Lilly’s involvement was “without foundation”, and the results had been open to review by all members of the study’s advisory board.

“As an independent research organisation, the last thing we want to do is compromise our position, and for people to regard the position we are taking as biased towards the funding body,” Brown tells The Australian.