In Pharma-Transparency Battle, Senate Republicans Side With Killer Doctors on the Take

Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal has proposed state legislation that would require drug company disclosure of all payments to doctors. The transparency tide in pharmaceuticals seems to be turning, as more companies disclose all their payments to doctors, and that's a good thing. But it all may come to an end if Senate Republicans get their way.

Companies such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) used to oppose this sort of thing tooth and nail. But now GSK publishes its payment lists, laws or not. Merck (MRK), Eli Lilly (LLY) and Cephalon (CEPH) all publish databases of their doctor payments. Massachusetts has a similar law but it's not perfect.

Currently, not a single drug company actively opposes transparency on this issue (although plenty are keeping silent).

There are two good reasons that all companies should get on board with this. First, because patients don't realize that most doctors in the U.S. have a financial relationship with a drug, device or healthcare company, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

Second, because since Lilly published its list, the St. Petersburg Times found two Tampa surgeons on it who were involved in a botched surgery that killed a high school teacher and one who brain damaged a patient during sinus surgery, leaving the patient paralyzed and blind. Lilly takes a hit on this, but in the long term it now knows not to hire those guys again. Everybody wins.

All this healthy sunshine may be fleeting if the Republican minority in the Senate defeats healthcare reform. Buried within the bill is a federal requirement for all drug company payments to doctors to be disclosed in annual reports. It's not the most rigorous disclosure requirement -- there are various loopholes for different types of providers -- but it would create a searchable online database that any patient or researcher could use to see if their doctor or colleague was on the take.

It would also create a scale efficiency for good companies such as Merck, Lilly, GSK and Cephalon: If the law requires you to disclose some payments, it may just be easier to disclose the whole lot.

If defeated, the momentum for pharma transparency would likely falter, allowing drug companies to continue hiring killer doctors in states without disclosure standards.

Related:

• Why FDA Needs a New Search Engine
• Goodwin, Biederman on Counter-Attack in Drug Funding Transparency Scandal
• GSK CEO Andrew Witty Joins the Retreat on Pharma Transparency
• Academic Drug Conflicts Probe: "Problems With Transparency Are Everywhere"