Monday, February 8, 2016

Merck will disclose all sorts of payments to doctors, medical groups

The big pharmaceutical company announced a comprehensive program to publish the financial support it provides for continuing medical education and to medical societies and even doctors.

Merck will disclose all sorts of payments to doctors, medical groups


Merck & Co. Inc. becomes the latest pharmaceutical company to agree to disclose how much money it gives to health-related institutions.

But it will go one step further: Merck will specify payments it makes to doctors.

It announced the moves one day after Eli Lilly & Co. became the first drug maker to agree to spell out how much it pays doctors for speeches and advisory services. Lilly will disclose any payment more than $500.

The drug industry has come under pressure from Congress to become more transparent over its financial support for continuing medical education and professional associations. The reason? The worry that by paying to support educational programs that discuss new drugs, companies have a powerful platform to prompt doctors to prescribe them.

GlaxoSmithKline PLC last month said it would begin publishing its educational and charitable grants on a quarterly basis, starting in February.

Merck said it will publish grants made by its Global Human Health division for “professional education initiatives” to patient organizations, medical professional societies and other groups, starting in October.

During 2009, Merck will expand the disclosure to encompass other grants made to medical, scientific and patient organizations.

In addition, Merck says during 2009 it will begin revealing how much it pays physicians who speak on behalf of the company or its products. So far, Eli Lilly is the only other drug maker to pledge to do that.

Make no mistake, Merck and other drug makers may be voluntarily doing this, but they’re being pushed, primarily by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa). There is pending legislation, called the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, to force disclosure of the industry’s financial ties to doctors.

Sponsored by Grassley, it would require disclosure of payments of more than $25 and levy penalties of up to $100,000 for failure to do so.

Inquirer Columnist
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Mike Armstrong Inquirer Columnist
Also on
letter icon Newsletter