Healthy Skepticism Library item: 10230

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Weeks C.
Pharmaceutical companies behind push for Ottawa to pay for HIV drugs
CanWest News Service 2007 May 28
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ccd028cf-759b-439f-a34f-2f368a4b490f&k=79904&p=1

Full text:

OTTAWA — Louise Binder is HIV-positive and chairwoman of a coalition that fights for drug-policy reform in Canada. During a recent visit to the nation’s capital she urged members of Parliament to rewrite the rules governing prescription drugs that would increase the access patients have to new, expensive medications and require the government to foot the bill.

One thing she didn’t mention during that visit is the fact her association, the Best Medicines Coalition, receives 100 per cent of its funding from Canada’s pharmaceutical companies – the very industry that stands to profit most from a governmental decision to approve new and expensive drugs for use and coverage in Canada.

Binder and others spoke to the House of Commons health committee, which is in the process of studying the Common Drug Review, the federal body responsible for reviewing new drugs and recommending to provinces which drugs to put on their coverage plans.

Now, critics are concerned that industry-funded groups that describe themselves as patient advocates may be swaying how Canadian governments approve new medications – without disclosing to policy-makers where they receive their funding.“They’re all conflicted. These groups are getting money from the very companies whose drugs we’re talking about,” said Alan Cassels, a drug-policy researcher at the University of Victoria.

He said the Best Medicines Coalition is just one of many self-described patient groups, such as the Cancer Advocacy Coalition, which say they represent patients, but don’t readily disclose that they receive drug industry funding.

But Binder defended her group’s mandate, saying that groups such as hers are forced to accept drug industry money because the government doesn’t provide any. Despite its funding source, the group is not influenced in any way by the drug industry, she said.

“I understand the argument completely. If I had a history of always taking a position that just was a parrot of what the pharmaceutical industry wanted, then I would say fair enough,” she said. “But there are so many areas in which I publicly don’t agree with the pharmaceutical industry. I just resent that.”

Not everyone agrees. Binder’s arguments mirrored those expressed to the committee by the pharmaceutical industry, which raised some concerning questions about her motivation and a potential conflict of interest, said Steven Fletcher, Conservative MP and parliamentary secretary to the health minister.

“Here they are representing exactly the same positions as big pharma,” Fletcher said. “If they disclosed that at the onset, that would’ve been much better than disclosing it once they were asked.”

During her visit to Parliament earlier this month, Fletcher asked Binder some pointed questions about her group’s funding and potential conflict of interest. She told the committee her group receives half its funding from the drug industry and half from Health Canada. Binder said she couldn’t name which companies provided money, and said some of it comes from Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, an industry association.

But during an interview, Binder said the group actually receives 100 per cent of its $250,000 operating budget from the pharmaceutical industry. Although it received half its funding from Health Canada last year, it was an anomaly, in the form of a grant for a research project.

Fletcher called that omission “disgusting” in an interview and said he intends to raise the issue when Parliament resumes.

“If organizations come to a parliamentary committee, they should be transparent just as a matter of course,” Fletcher said. “If they are asked specifically about funding and the issue of accountability is raised, to do anything less than be transparent and accountable does the process a disservice and does all Canadians a great disservice.”

Cassels said groups that receive some or all of their funding from the pharmaceutical industry should voluntarily disclose that information so the individuals they’re advocating to have all of the facts.

“They don’t have a disinterested position about the benefits or harms related to the drugs and they will maintain a position that’s very much in their funder’s interests,” Cassels said.

The Best Medicines Coalition has nothing to hide, Binder said. She said she doesn’t conceal where the group gets its money and would even post that information on the group’s website if she thought it were “relevant.”

But for now, she said, “I don’t think it is.”