Pressured, med firms to disclose grant info

Under pressure from congressional leaders, several of the nation's top medical device and drug companies say they plan to publicly disclose donations and grants to outside organizations, such as patient advocacy groups and medical societies.

Among them: Fridley-based medical technology giant Medtronic Inc., which said it will post the grant information on its website (www.medtronic.com) beginning May 1. Other large medical device firms in Minnesota, including Boston Scientific Corp., and St. Jude Medical Inc., say they are working on or interested in similar programs.

The thinking among some congressional leaders is that allowing public scrutiny of the payments will discourage questionable industry practices that could influence patient care.

The companies' declarations come after Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, wrote to 15 of the nation's biggest drug and device companies Feb. 26 asking if they planned to follow the lead of drugmaker Eli Lilly & Co., which began posting grant information on its website last year.

"If your company does not yet have any efforts or plans in place, please explain why not," Grassley wrote, rather pointedly, to the companies.

Boston Scientific, with more than 6,000 workers in Arden Hills and Maple Grove, said it has started a project "to develop the systems necessary to disclosure of payments to physicians, institutions, patient organizations and medical societies."

Little Canada-based St. Jude Medical, which makes heart defibrillators, pacemakers and heart valves, said it would support "uniform reporting guidelines covering what should be disclosed, how it should be disclosed and when it should be disclosed; this will help ensure that data provided by companies is more easily understood and meaningful."

Staff members of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, began investigating educational grants in 2005, after hearing reports that drug companies were routinely using them to build market share for their newest and most-lucrative products, according to a committee report released last year.

These products tend to be more expensive than older drugs and devices, the report said. They also have a shorter clinical history -- which the report says may lead to patients being exposed to greater risks than they would face from using older products that have proven track records of safety and effectiveness.

Some of the educational programs funded by industry may also encourage physicians to prescribe products "off-label" -- or ways not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Not everyone's happy

While Grassley is reportedly pleased with the response he received from the companies, one official of a Washington watchdog group called the response "inadequate."

Because there's no federal law requiring grant disclosure, Lurie predicts that the content and quality of the data submitted by the companies will vary widely. He would much prefer legislation to require the information be presented in a standardized fashion.

Grassley has attacked the relationship between drug and device companies on another front, as well.

He and Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., have introduced legislation to require drug and device companies to disclose how much they give to doctors through payments, gifts, honoraria, travel and other means. That bill is pending. A spokeswoman for Grassley said that he has no immediate plans to pursue separate legislation requiring companies to disclose grant information.