This article is part of a six-part series focusing on the Wyeth-sponsored non-profit coalition Depression Is Real. To learn more about this series, please click here.
Another week, another negative story focusing on links between pharmaceutical companies and non-profit organizations. In this case, the Wall Street Journal highlighted (subscription required) the Epilepsy Foundation’s efforts to secure the passage of state legislation that would prevent pharmacists from switching patients from branded to generic medications. The Epilepsy Foundation is supported by a number of drug firms, including a few whose epilepsy products are facing patent expiration over the next few years. In a passage examining the relationship between the foundation and industry, the Journal noted:
“The foundation says its diverse funding base shields it from undue drug-company influence, and the industry executives on its board didn’t participate in discussions of the drug-switching issue. Foundation leaders note that the state bills would generally require doctor permission for several kinds of switches, including when a patient goes from a generic to a brand. . . . “These are people’s lives that we’re talking about – nothing about stock options and stock value and how this would affect [companies’] bottom line. That would be insulting to us to have discussions like that,” says Sindi Rosales, the head of a foundation affiliate in Texas, one of the states that weighed legislation this year.”
Therein lies the rub. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest – for business and ethical reasons – in developing relationships with non-profit organizations active in disease states their medications are designed to treat. The fact remains that few advocacy organizations are in the position to educate the public and help patients without industry support. However, increasingly critics and the public are asking tough questions about whether drug firm-non-profit cause alliances are good for medicine and the public.
Depression Education, Big Pharma & Cause Alliances:
An Overview Of The Issues
An Overview Of The Issues
Another week, another negative story focusing on links between pharmaceutical companies and non-profit organizations. In this case, the Wall Street Journal highlighted (subscription required) the Epilepsy Foundation’s efforts to secure the passage of state legislation that would prevent pharmacists from switching patients from branded to generic medications. The Epilepsy Foundation is supported by a number of drug firms, including a few whose epilepsy products are facing patent expiration over the next few years. In a passage examining the relationship between the foundation and industry, the Journal noted: “The foundation says its diverse funding base shields it from undue drug-company influence, and the industry executives on its board didn’t participate in discussions of the drug-switching issue. Foundation leaders note that the state bills would generally require doctor permission for several kinds of switches, including when a patient goes from a generic to a brand. . . . “These are people’s lives that we’re talking about – nothing about stock options and stock value and how this would affect [companies’] bottom line. That would be insulting to us to have discussions like that,” says Sindi Rosales, the head of a foundation affiliate in Texas, one of the states that weighed legislation this year.”
Therein lies the rub. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest – for business and ethical reasons – in developing relationships with non-profit organizations active in disease states their medications are designed to treat. The fact remains that few advocacy organizations are in the position to educate the public and help patients without industry support. However, increasingly critics and the public are asking tough questions about whether drug firm-non-profit cause alliances are good for medicine and the public.
Depression Education & Non-Profit/Drug Firm Alliances
In 1987, Eli Lilly and Company introduced the anti-depressant Prozac, a development which would have a far-reaching impact on the treatment and perceptions of mental illness. According to the Observer, “many people feel they owe their lives to Prozac,” which has been prescribed to more than 50 million people worldwide.
In order to educate the public about depression – especially new scientific information about its biological basis – Eli Lilly partnered with major patient advocacy organizations like the National Mental Health Association (NMHA). These groups, which are dedicated to destigmatizing depression, were delighted to have a powerful ally like the pharmaceutical industry that could help them achieve their mission.
However, over the years, criticism of the drug industry and its non-profit allies steadily increased. For example, in 2006, the New Scientist published an article “Swallowing the Best Advice?,” in which it analyzed industry support of groups working in areas identified by the journal PLoS Medicine as “susceptible to disease mongering.” PLoS defines disease mongering as the “selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.” The journal suggested that drug firms are sponsoring educational campaigns that are inappropriately expanding treatment of a variety of mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder and ADHD.
In 1987, Eli Lilly and Company introduced the anti-depressant Prozac, a development which would have a far-reaching impact on the treatment and perceptions of mental illness. According to the Observer, “many people feel they owe their lives to Prozac,” which has been prescribed to more than 50 million people worldwide.
In order to educate the public about depression – especially new scientific information about its biological basis – Eli Lilly partnered with major patient advocacy organizations like the National Mental Health Association (NMHA). These groups, which are dedicated to destigmatizing depression, were delighted to have a powerful ally like the pharmaceutical industry that could help them achieve their mission.
However, over the years, criticism of the drug industry and its non-profit allies steadily increased. For example, in 2006, the New Scientist published an article “Swallowing the Best Advice?,” in which it analyzed industry support of groups working in areas identified by the journal PLoS Medicine as “susceptible to disease mongering.” PLoS defines disease mongering as the “selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.” The journal suggested that drug firms are sponsoring educational campaigns that are inappropriately expanding treatment of a variety of mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder and ADHD.
According the New Scientist, a major patient advocacy group, the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA) (DBSA is a member of the Depression is Real coalition), received more than 50 percent of its total revenue from the drug industry in 2005. This finding led some to suggest that groups like DBSA could possibly be independent. For example, Douglas Ball of Kuwait University suggested that “patient organisations are getting something and feel the need to repay that gift. Whether they are conscious of it or not is really irrelevant.”
What Do Non-Profits & The Pharma Industry Have To Say?
Drug firms are well aware of charges that their grants compromise the independence of the non-profit organizations they support. However, they (and the non-profits they fund) argue that the policies and procedures they have developed ensure that their cause alliances are truly independent and credible. You’ll hear more about this in the next edition of this series featuring commentary from Gwen Fisher of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
What Do Non-Profits & The Pharma Industry Have To Say?
Drug firms are well aware of charges that their grants compromise the independence of the non-profit organizations they support. However, they (and the non-profits they fund) argue that the policies and procedures they have developed ensure that their cause alliances are truly independent and credible. You’ll hear more about this in the next edition of this series featuring commentary from Gwen Fisher of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
» New Series: Depression Education, Cause Alliances & Social Media Communications from HealthCareVox
Last April, I received a very interesting e-mail from the public relations firm Porter Novelli. The agency was writing on behalf of a group of seven non-profit organizations who had joined together to help educate the public about depression.&nbs... [Read More]
Tracked on: July 26, 2007 12:59 PM | Permalink to Trackback