More Bad Karma From Big Pharma

This AP/Minnesota Public Radio story tells us of a law in that state that requires drugmakers to disclose how much money they spend on members of state advisory panels who select the drugs used in Medicaid programs, and what kind of revelations are discovered (hmm, can you smell just a whiff of collusion, boys and girls?).

As noted…

Those panels, most comprised of physicians, hold great sway over the $28 billion spent on drugs each year for Medicaid patients nationwide. But aside from Minnesota, only Vermont and Maine require drug companies to report payments to doctors for lectures, consulting, research and other services.

An Associated Press review of records in Minnesota found that a doctor and a pharmacist on the eight-member state panel simultaneously got big checks - more than $350,000 to one - from pharmaceutical companies for speaking about their products.

…

The AP began looking at the records in mid-June. Soon after, the Minnesota Medicaid Drug Formulary Committee began considering a conflict-of-interest policy that would require members to disclose such financial relationships and recuse themselves from voting in some cases. The committee is expected to act on the policy next month.

John E. Simon, a psychiatrist appointed to the panel in 2004, earned more than $350,000 from drug companies between 2004 and 2006. Pharmacist Robert Straka served from 2000 to 2006 and collected $78,000 from various drug makers during that time.

Both men, and the committee chairman, said the payments did not influence their work with the committee.

Uh huh…

…ethical experts said the Minnesota data raise questions about the possibility of similar financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and advisers in other states.

"In the absence of disclosure laws, there's certainly no way to know," said Jack Hoadley, a research professor specializing in Medicaid at Georgetown University in Washington. "There are a lot of physicians in general who have at least some contract or grant funding out of pharmaceutical companies, and additional (who) do speaking engagements."

Fortunately, this American Prospect story tells us that…

…Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin said they intended to push for a national registry. McCaskill's press office would not give details about any forthcoming legislation, but said the senator has "moved in the direction of a national disclosure registry for gifts to physicians."

''If it becomes a public record, it will have a cleansing effect on what I think is an insidious practice,'' McCaskill told the Miami Herald in July.

To avoid the same pitfalls as the state laws, Wolfe said Congress has to "be serious" about creating legislation that does not shield drug companies and doctors. But with lawmakers remaining mum about it, it is too early to tell if possible legislation will have any teeth.

To get more of an idea of the importance of this issue, let’s consider the fact that Merck has fought every single case brought against it over Vioxx, a painkiller that has been linked to 27,000 cardiac deaths and heart attacks in this country (that number sounds low, actually, believe it or not, based on this report – the New York Times has the plaintiff number at 45,000 here). And based on the Times story, Merck seems to be winning the majority of the cases, even though the Times report notes the following…

“The possibility of increased C.V. events is of great concern,” a Merck scientist, Dr. Alise Reicin, wrote in a 1997 e-mail message.” “C.V. events” is medical shorthand for cardiovascular incidents like heart attacks. “I just can’t wait to be the one to present those results to senior management,” Dr. Reicin’s message continued.

So yes, Merck was indeed warned about Vioxx.

Don’t you think the plaintiffs in the Merck cases would want to know how much money may have changed hands between the company and their family physicians to promote the drug that injured or killed one of their family members?