Grassley Probes WebMd Ties To Eli Lilly
25 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 19th, 2010 // 6:40 pm
Grassley, who is the ranking Republican on the US Senate Finance Committee, is investigating the relationship between WebMD and drugmakers after learning the web site is running a TV ad that encourage people to take a depression-screening test sponsored by Eli Lilly, which sells Cymbalta.
So he wants WebMD, which lots of folks visit for medical info, to disclose its ties to the industry, in general, because the Lilly sponsorship raises questions about WebMD’s “independence,” according to this Feb. 18 letter to WebMD exec Wayne Gattinella. The ad encourages people to visit WebMD’s site to take a depression-screening test (see here).
The test asks questions about suffering emotional or physical symptoms associated with depression and includes banner ads on the top and middle of the page about Cymbalta. A WebMD spokeswoman tells Dow Jones the company believes “our internal process ensures our editorial independence in our programs.” Well, click on that page and you’re taken to another clearly sponsored by Lilly (look).
patrons99
Great post Ed! Once again, KUDOS to Senator Grassley. Generally speaking, medical CME sites are not just a little bit biased…they are COMPLETELY biased, in favor of pharma. Some sites are more egregious than others. Some try to be cute. Most are completely shameless. It’s very difficult to concentrate on the CME with all of the pop-ups for marketed drugs distracting you. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that there are even subliminal cues in “CME”.
webber
hmmm interesting for sure.
Matthew Holford
Am I being stupid, or has the test been taken down (I couldn’t see it, in other words)? Anyway, this is Eli we’re talking about… Eli Lilly, purveyor of narcotics to the “intelligence” services, as I never tire of mentioning. Given MK-ULTRA, anything’s possible with this bunch.
Matt
tyker1050
http://www.webmd.com/depression/depression-health-check/default.htm
this link should work.
Christina
Very interesting. Will the documents WebMD provides in response be made public? I’m very curious to see them. I hope you can post them!
The banner ads are not surprising. The quiz is appalling.
Thanks for doing what you do, Ed. Have a great weekend!
Condor
I filled out the survey — just to skew the data, and left an email address — to see if they’ll contact me. Will report any entertaining results, right here(!).
And, in a not-completely-unrelated-vein. . . .
Senators Grassley and Baucus have also been asking high and low about GSK’s Avandia. Apparently Gardiner Harris, at The New York Times has the goods on Monday’s coming FDA pronouncements — in which GSK is very sharply criticized, for understating or misrepresenting troubling meta-data analyses it conducted in 2005 and 2006 (analyses that linked Avantia to serious heart risks).
As if that weren’t enough, it is alleged that GSK was intimidating doctors who spoke out about what they were seeing, as early as 1999 — including a professor at the University of North Carolina.
This whole thing stinks — like a fish-market at low tide, on an August afternoon.
Namaste
smlkse
i don’t know much about the physicians who opine on WebMD. wonder if they have any conflict policies and if they”re followed.
As Patrons99 said Kudos to Senator Grassley
Justice in MI
re: Avandia, as usual Ed has been on top of the story for some time. Among other Pharmalot threads, see:
http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/11/silence-the-intimidation-of-an-avandia-critic/
I guess we’ll see what Monday brings that’s new.
Condor
Quite so, JiM — Ed was way ahead of the curve, as a journalist on Avandia.
I am curious to read just how strident the FDA’s document turns out to be.
We shall see.
N’maste
Sybil
WebMD has to make money to pay their employees to create content that is ultimately supposed to help and educate people - info they provide all medically reviewed by doctors for FREE to users. Their editorial team has absolutely NO idea who’s paying for the content they’re creating. Obviously, it would completely compromise the integrity of the brand if they allowed content to be influenced by sponsors. OF COURSE people would be outraged! So if it were true, then the website would fail and then what?! WebMD has been in this business long enough to know how NOT to be stupid and upset the public, thus losing their trust and thus failing / going out of business. So no. This is not the case here. Put your pitchforks down.
Sean
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a sales rep for GSK and launched Avandia. The amount of data swirling around this product has just made the situation more confusing for myself and others, who want to do the right thing every day. Of course, we are subject to knowing only what we are given and exposed to as representatives. I do believe whatever the outcome, representatives and physicians alike just want to know the truth.However the truth comes out, I do know the political and financial concerns of GSK, the FDA, investigating senators and media hounds such as Nissen cannot be underestimated. As always, follow the money or political cache gained and clarity around each parties involvement will become clearer and clearer.
Regarding the comment of silencing a UNC Professor, I would like to offer some clarity around this individual. This physician is a well-known diabetes expert and his academic background is outstanding. However, like many involved in this case, this professor is not as fully transparent as he portrays himself to be. He spoke out strongly during the initial Avandia meta-analysis firestorm and later attached his name to a treatment opinion piece. During all of his interviews and addendums acknowledging pharmaceutical relationships, he has never acknowledged how he toured all of NC speaking for Avandia’s main competitor. He has never acknowledged the financial gain from these engagements and puts his relationship under the monicker of “university duties”. This physician has every right to express his opinion and further discussion, however his lack of full disclosure is just another example of how this ordeal has created a vast exercise in jockeying for financial or political for all those involved.
MsPiggy
“WebMD has been in this business long enough to know how NOT to be stupid and upset the public”
You are kidding us, correct?
What are you going to tell us next; that Big Pharma has been in business long enough not to risk shoddy and illegal marketing tactics/practices, or would never use misrepresentations of their products.
As it is said over and over again “Just follow the money, STUPID”
Christopher
patrons mentioned CME in his first comment, posibly implyng that the content seen by the public on WebMD is CME. (For those who don’t know CME is Continuing Medical Education required of medical practitioners to maintain a professional license.) That is not what WebMD puts out when it is providing health-related info for the public.
I agree with Sybil - WebMD is a business run by management who know well enough to keep the customer happy. It’s a huge business that has grown because the consumer likes its products. Whether the info is provide by pharma or any other entity doesn’t matter to me - it’s what the final product looks like and whether it’s of value or use. It’s up to WebMD’s people to determine what that looks like and keep the product good.
Surpised it has taken Senator Grassley so long to get after this, btw
Bernard Carroll
WebMD does indeed offer CME, through its subsidiary company Medscape. They have taken plenty of hits for lousy ethics and for biased, misleading, and commercially compromised content. Here are two examples:
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/06/medscapes-cme-ethics.html
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/06/medscapes-cme-ethics-part-ii.html
patrons99
Christopher:
Is there any connection (relationship) between WebMD and MedPageToday? Do either WebMD or MedPageToday offer medical “CME”? — serious questions.
You are very correct in stating that “Continuing Medical Education is required of medical practitioners to maintain a professional license.” As with so much in life, however, the phrase “let the buyer beware” is an apt description.
Who do you suppose the so-called “health-related info for the public” is targeted at? Why do these sites often require login (username and passwords)?
The concept of “CME” really can have both a limited (required for license maintenance) and a much broader connotation. Again, generally speaking, both types of CME are effectively, if not actually, ghostwritten by pharma.
If you look carefully at my earlier comment in this thread, it began “Generally speaking,…”. Thus, I would say to any “medical” website, “if the shoe fits, wear it”.
Christopher
Thank you Bernard. I wasn’t referring to Medscape but to WebMD. The links you provided say pretty much what has been said before - industry tainting CME and so on, and so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt. It’s old news though - it’s harder than ever to exert influence on CME providers now, or so my friends tell me.
Patrons - I would say that “health-related info for the public” is aimed at the public. There is much to be gained for sponsors in having a reach into the public domain. The reason these sites ask for log in is to have more pre-selection from the signer-in, so that if one selects info on ADHD and high cholsterol for example, they can direct related info to that individual. And yes, that pleases the sponsors because they can connect directly or indirectly, depending on the choice of the registered member, on a topic of stated interest.
If you are implying that WebMD may be trying to reach medical professionals, well perhaps but I doubt it. The level of info presented there would be too basic I think. Physicians do use the web for info though, and as new - younger - docs and practitioners come along more will rely on the web for access and info. Already about 80% of docs use Google for ‘education’, 85% use it for medical searches and info, and 60% for new product information, so the practice is well established and will only increase. I don’t think that WebMD is where they would go first though.
patrons99
O.K., Christopher. I see the point that you are making. I think that you are saying that WebMD is a DTC marketing platform, whereas its subsidiaries, e.g. MedscapeCME, are the sites for “CME” targeted at physicians.
I’m reminded of some “CME” I read, which centered on an article titled “Implementing Changing Guidelines on Adult Immunizations: An Expert Interview With Gregory A. Poland, MD, MACP”, which was blatantly and shamelessly supported by no less than GSK, Merck, and Novartis. Of course, their “expert” had seemingly never heard of a vaccine that he was not completely enamoured with. Do I believe that both the CME and Guidelines on Adult Immunizations are effectively ghostwritten by pharma? What do you think?
Christopher
Patrons, rather than a DTC site I believe that WebMD is in the health business - which itself is massive - and that pharma companies as well as others in ‘health’ see it as a way to reach consumers, influencers, etc. Pharma companies use it to communicate with interested parties on topics that interest them, ot with which they are involved. It all helps build relationships. Some will use it for direct or indirect DTC promotion of their products, others as a soft contact in an overall wellness program.
Bernard pointed out the relationship with Medscape.
Re CME I will go back to a comment on here a year or so ago. If pharma doesn’t sponsor it, who will? At least to the extent it is provided and required. Certaily pharma has interest in being involved, and of course in the past it had a heavy hand in controlling the topics covered. Nowadays I don’t think so. It is extremely difficult for their agencies to control the message. There are significant controls in place within pharma to prevent marketing’s involvement. Perhaps this is why companies are getting out of CME delivered through for-profit providers.
Is ghostwritten CME bad? No. Can it be - of course but the immediate assumption that ghostwriting = wrong is flawed in my opinion. That’s a topic been hammered enough on here already I think though.
johnsmoway
just saw tv ad
Pharma Conduct Guy
This particular issue illustrates why, despite all the promise of personalized medicine whereby treatments for an individual are selected based on that person’s phenotype/genotype, it’s still not a reality. From a technology perspective point of care testing incorporating profiling using genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolics is within arms reach.
However, some in pharma do not want prescribing decisions to be based upon clear-cut, objectively measurable criteria. One reason pharma’s give so much money to psychiatrists is because theirs is a profession where the vast majority of diagnoses are based entirely on criteria that cannot be assessed with a biological measurement. With other conditions, such as cancer, diabetes, or infection, objectively measurable outcomes are possible. “Diseases” based on pathologies that cannot be measured objectively allow one to create a larger patient pool through continually evolving or subjective “diagnostic” criteria.
elmore
I checked the DSM IV criteria for major depression, then took the test, intentionally checking off a couple but not all the criteria required for a diagnosis. The test told me I was suffering from minor depression, to talk to my doctor, and that medical treatment was available.
belmont
its about time.
masonwatcher
very informative Ed. I would like to see what happens to this and how WebMD will respond.
concerned
Went through the survey…. Clicked off that I was a woman receiving chemotherapy and trying to get pregnant. Wouldn’t you think this is a problem which should be called out???????????
josephajain
I guess it was enough for understanding…I liked the way u described it…