Journalism in the Public Interest

Payments to Doctors by Most Pharma Companies Still Remain Secret

Oct 28: This post has been updated.

Though an investigation we published yesterday showed that hundreds of doctors with disciplinary records or limited credentials are on the payrolls of major pharmaceutical companies, consumers hoping to know more about the payments that aren’t in our database will have to wait until 2013 for such disclosures to be made industry-wide.

That’s because only seven of the more than 70 pharmaceutical companies operating in the United States have made disclosures about the doctors they pay to consult and promote their drugs, and new disclosure rules [PDF] included in the health care reform bill don't require the companies to report such payments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services until March 2013. The government has until the end of September 2013 to make the information public and searchable.

In the meantime, data from all seven companies currently posting payments—AstraZeneca, Cephalon, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly and Co., Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer—are publicly available in our Dollars for Docs database, which includes payments made in 2009 and 2010.

Of the seven, only two—Merck and GlaxoSmithKline—have done so voluntarily. Another four—plus a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson—have been required to make the disclosures as part of legal settlements with the federal government to resolve lawsuits alleging fraudulent marketing practices. (Clarification: An AstraZeneca spokesman said that the company had in May 2009 announced plans to voluntarily disclose doctor compensation beginning August 2010. According to spokesman Tony Jewell, the company had made the announcement with "no idea at the time" that an April 2010 settlement agreement with the Justice Department would later require such disclosures.)

As we’ve noted, the seven companies together account for about 36 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales. While that’s a sizeable share of the market, it suggests that there are many more payments from other drug companies that consumers don’t yet know their doctors are receiving.

The top 15 pharmaceutical companies in the U.S., for example, together comprised 68 percent of the prescription drug market in 2009. Most of those companies aren’t disclosing physician payments, though one, Novartis, will begin doing so by March 2011, thanks to a settlement reached this fall with the Justice Department. (Allergan and Forest Laboratories, two companies not in the top 15, will also begin making disclosures next year as part of such settlements.)

But the rest may have to wait for a provision in this year’s health care reform legislation known as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to take effect.

The measure, originally proposed by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Herb Kohl, D-Wis., requires companies to disclose all speaking fees, consulting fees, research, grants, stock options, gifts, entertainment, food, travel, education, and charitable contributions given to doctors—or else face civil penalties between $1,000 to $10,000 for each payment that was unintentionally left unreported. (Those penalties will be capped at $150,000 per year.) Intentional failures to disclose will cost the companies even more—anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000—but those fines are capped at $1 million each year.

The Sunshine Act also requires companies to report the doctor receiving the payment, the doctor’s address, the payment date, and the drug or device that the doctor helped promote. That’s more than what any of the companies are currently disclosing, if you check our compliance chart.

Most of the top 15 companies, asked why they’re not doing voluntary disclosures like some of their peers, either declined to comment, didn’t respond to our request for comment, or responded by pointing out other information that they’re currently disclosing, such as grants for education or donations to medical organizations.

Some companies told us they’re gearing up to comply with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act but don’t yet have a specific time frame for doing so, even though several of their peers in the industry are making disclosures early, and some even voluntarily.

“I’m not going to comment on what other peers in industry are doing,” Scott Davies, a spokesman for Abbot Laboratories, told us. “We currently do comply with everything we need to comply with, and we will be complying with the Sunshine Act when it comes time. I can’t give an earlier time frame for doing that.”

Look at the device companies…pacemakers, catheters, angioplasty etc.  There is more of this than anyone ever knew going on.  It makes the credibility suspect.

It would be very interesting to see how many of the high price consultants are also part of the FDA’s panels to approve drugs!!!

waking up in america

Oct. 23, 2010, 2:42 p.m.

Exactly! Buying or selling ANY AND EVERYTHING off the record, in the ally, isn’t just for the drug dealers!

Barbara Blanton

Nov. 10, 2010, 4:38 p.m.

When I got my hip implant, the device maker was in the OR with the Harvard trained doc.  When my spouse got his new knee implant last month, the device-maker was in the OR with his doc.  They both consulted with the docs’ teams prior to surgery.  Our neighbor works for a cardiac device company and he is always in the OR when his devices are implanted in “his” docs’ patients chests.

Until we got into joint replacements, I had no idea that the device maker’s sales reps and the docs were joined at the brain and were part of the decision-making and operative team.  I’m a psych nurse educator and administrator, not an OR nurse.

Robert Olcott

Jan. 13, 2011, 4:26 p.m.

Could you also please show us (Senator Grassley/U.S. Senate Finance Committee have some data) the Non-Profits who either overtly or covertly lobbied on behalf of “Big Pharma” (as in the case of NAMI, which allied itself with 10 Pharmaceutical Companies in calling for looser restriction of off-label marketing-which Senator Grassley found out about…see Grassley/Senate Finance Committee 12/7/09 letter to AMA CEO Michael Maves). Thank You ProPublica!!!

Tommy McConnell

Jan. 13, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

There should be some kind of law that would force the device Mfg. to report failures when their product does not work so patients would know in front the percentage of failure before they have the surgery.This information should be reported to the FDA. and proper action taken.

I have just suffered the worst year of my life in having 4 surgeries this year before reaching success.I would hate to see anyone else go thru what I have.

Bradford hutchingson

Feb. 16, 2011, 4:48 p.m.

You bet yur butt I’m using my real name! What I really want to see, is this data made searchable by *DRUG*. For example, I should be able to look for the DRUG, oh, say Zyprexa, and see who makes the DRUG, how much $$$ they have paid to who, etc….The psuedoscience of psychiatry has been DRUGGING and KILLING too many people, too freely, for too long! DRUGS are not good for anybody! Especially those in emotional crisis! From Columbine to Arizona, VA Tech to John Lennon, our sickest shooters use psych DRUGS!...I haven’t been suicidal, since I finished TAPERING off Prozac! But yes, I would gladly kill a psychiatrist & walk on a mercy killing plea!...Wanna try to reformat those $$DRUG$$ stats?

I work on projects that help med device and pharma companies report on this information accurately and efficiently. If you’re looking for help. Please reply to this article.

Bradford Hutchingson

April 30, 2012, 6:34 p.m.

Who are you talking to, Thomas? What “article” are you referring to? Even if I was “looking for help”, how could an obvious industry shill, actually HELP anybody, other than your Pharma paymasters?
The LIE of PSYCHITRY has killed too many, ruined too many lives…
It is a LIE, and it KILLS, and it is ALL FDA approved… And some people are getting RICH, off other people’s misery…
THAT is GENOCIDE of the poor, disabled, and under-educated…
It’s inhumane…

If Abbott is compliant, they are doing a clever job of hiding their payments to physicians for marketing activities on their website. Their agreement with OIG states that staring Jan 2013, the report must be prominently displayed on their website. No one appears to be holding their feet to the fire.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories