Grassley: researchers misreported commercial pharma payments

Share this article:

Three researchers affiliated with Harvard Medical School failed to properly report income, a possible violation of federal law, according to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA).  The allegations were first reported on the front page of the Sunday New York Times.

The Times story revealed that two influential psychiatrists and another colleague may have violated federal and university conflict of interest research rules by inaccurately reporting incomes received from drug companies.

According to Sen. Grassley's comments in The Congressional Record, Harvard and Mass General Hospital – the institution administering grants to Drs. Joseph Biederman and Timothy Wilens – provided conflict of interest forms to Grassley for Dr. Biederman, Dr. Thomas Spencer and Dr. Wilens last October.  Based on the forms Grassley received, “anyone would be led to believe that these doctors were not taking much money.  Over the last seven years, it looked like they had taken a couple hundred thousand dollars,” said Grassley in comments.  After Harvard and Mass General asked the doctors to review their financial disclosures in March, the three doctors admitted receiving drug industry money ranging from $1 million to $1.6 million, according to Grassley's comments.

Additionally, Grassley requested payment records from pharmaceutical companies for the three doctors, revealing further discrepancies.  “Eli Lilly has reported to me that they paid tens of thousands of dollars to Dr. Biederman that he has still not accounted for.  And the same thing goes for Drs. Spencer and Wilens,” wrote Grassley.

According to Grassley, both Harvard and Mass General have established an income de minimus that forbids researchers from “conducting clinical trials with a drug or technology if they receive payments over $20,000 from the company that manufactures the drug or technology.”  Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires universities and hospitals whose researchers apply for NIH grants to provide “significant financial interest” that could affect the results of a study.  “NIH interprets ‘significant financial interest' to mean at least $10,000 in value or 5% ownership in a single entity.  The three researchers' March disclosures appear to exceed the $10,000 cap.

Grassley sought financial information pertaining to the three doctors from several pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Thomson Physicians World and Pfizer.

Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

MM&M EBOOK: PATIENT ACCESS

Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Channel

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Monday, September 15

Five things for pharma marketers to know: ...

Pharma has sought 76 meetings with FDA over biosimilars; Gilead licenses Sovaldi to India generic drugmakers; Pfizer and Ranbaxy Lipitor lawsuit dismissed.

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Why Novo Nordisk is choosing not to leverage Victoza's brand equity as it seeks a weight-loss indication for liraglutide.

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, September 12

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, ...

An FDA panel voted in favor of liraglutide for weight loss; Allergan investors backing an attempted takeover of the firm crossed a critical threshold; and 100 million health wearables are ...