Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4

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

A different kind of drug problem
The Age 2003 Dec 17

Full text:

There should be greater transparency in pharmaceutical company sponsorship.

Look around almost any doctor’s surgery and there is evidence of the marketing activities of pharmaceutical companies. Pads, pens, toys, desk blotters, computer gadgets . . . these are the trinkets of drug promotion. Other expressions can be found in company-sponsored conferences and seminars to which members of the medical profession are invited. In addition to these promotional activities, considerable sums of money are being poured into patient advocacy groups and other medical interest organisations by major pharmaceutical companies, according to a recent investigation by The Age. There is no suggestion that this is illegal or even that it is necessarily improper for companies whose business is health to plough some of their profits back in such fashion.

When a multinational drug company gives money to an independent patient advisory group, the argument is not just about the ethics of such donations. The issue is one of disclosure. What ought to be clear to consumers and the general public is that when pharmaceutical companies are providing funding for research or other activities of a particular group, such as the National Asthma Council, Diabetes Australia or any other group, then this information must be in the public domain. The need to fully disclose such information, when known, also applies to news organisations such as The Age when reporting upon them.

The pharmaceutical business in Australia and internationally is big business. The turnover in this country alone is more than $5 billion a year. Some $450 million a year is spent by the companies on research and development. A further $20 million to $25 million is allocated to philanthropic causes, including patient interest groups. The largest turnover of any single drug company in Australia is $1.156 billion. Another nine have annual turnovers of more than $200 million. These are multinational companies, the five largest of which spend more than $US1 billion a year on promotions.

Aside from the need for disclosure, there are other issues such as what impact – intentional or otherwise – this sort of funding has on public health campaigns, research and the preferential use of certain drugs. The Age investigation found one instance of effective cross-promotion through the use of a company mascot. In another instance, a company was interested in raising public awareness of two strains of hepatitis, but not a third because it did not produce a vaccine for it.

At present there are no independent regulations governing drug company sponsorship deal and grants with patient groups or support organisations. That would be one mechanism for dealing with the issue. Another suggestion is the setting up of an independent body to control the disposition of money provided by the drug companies. That level of control ought not be necessary if transparency in dealings between drug companies and the patient groups can be assured.