THREE patient groups that successfully lobbied for a new leukaemia drug to be on the NHS received over £60,000 from the pharma firm behind the product.
One of the charities relies on Big Pharma for 70 per cent of its funding and has a trustee with financial links to Janssen-Cilag, which manufactures the Ibrutinib drug.
Professor David Miller, an academic who is also a transparency campaigner, said the practice of healthcare giants funding these groups “distorts” the decision-making process.
The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) is the NHS organisation that decides on whether new treatments can be recommended for use north of the border.
Read more: Healthcare: Patients a virtue in global success
Its decisions are crucial for patients, but also for pharma companies whose profits can be boosted by SMC judgements.
Treatments for blood cancer, skin cancer and high cholesterol were last week among six new medicines publicised by the SMC as being approved. However, although the decisions will benefit some patients, the role played by patient groups during the SMC process is again being questioned. In the case of Ibrutinib, Leukaemia Care, the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Support Association (CLLSA) and Bloodwise made formal submissions in relation to the capsules.
According to the SMC assessment, the CLLSA has received approximately 70 per cent of its funding from pharma firms in the past two years, including from Janssen.
The company provided the CLLSA with a £20,000 grant in 2104 for “summits”, “video materials”, “surveys” and “conferences”.
The patient group’s latest accounts state: “Main source of funds are from members donations and grants from pharmaceutical companies.”
One listed CLLSA trustee is Dr Samir Agrawal, who has declared around £2,000 in travel, accommodation and registration fees from Janssen on the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry disclosure website.
However, charity chair David Innes denied the CLLSA had a conflict of interest: “All our relations with pharmaceutical companies are regulated by the code of the ABPI. This code specifically rules out any interference in our affairs by any pharma company.”
Leukaemia Care has benefited from £21,954 from Janssen since 2014. A spokesperson said this sum amounted to roughly 1.1% of the charity’s annual income.
He added: “As a charity providing information and support to anybody affected by blood cancer, we recognise the importance of working collaboratively with all stakeholders with an interest in blood cancers. We work closely with key players in the blood cancer field – including the NHS, the Department of Health, medical professionals, other charities and the pharmaceutical industry.”
Read more: Revealed: Scots doctors pocket millions from Big Pharma in just one year
Bloodwise, another charity in the same field, has received £20,500 from Janssen since January 2014. As with the two other patient groups, the financial link was declared to the SMC.
A spokesperson for Bloodwise also denied a conflict of interest: “The grants we received were not in relation to the promotion of any treatment, and such practice is not permitted by the codes of conduct that govern joint activity between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, as set out by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.”
However, not only did the three groups make submissions, but they also played a special role in the SMC process. The SMC recently created a new stage in its assessment procedure – the Patient and Clinician Engagement (PACE). Representatives from each patient group participated in the PACE meeting.
Miller, who teaches sociology at Bath University, said: “Patient groups are increasingly being funded by big pharma to act as third-party supporters – sometimes called front groups – to distort the decision-making process by claiming that there are independent voices calling for drugs to be approved. The approval of drugs for the health service should be made on grounds of need and efficacy and groups with conflicts of interest – effectively lobbyists for industry – should be excluded from the process.”
An SMC spokesman said: “Details of all pharma funding received by patient groups who make submissions on medicines we are reviewing are fully declared as part of our processes.”
Read more: Doctor who chaired NHS heart disease group linked to nearly 20 drug firms
A spokesperson for Janssen said: "At Janssen, we partner with a wide range of stakeholders and organisations, including patient groups, to grow our understanding of the needs of patients and their families. We believe in absolute transparency to help build trust and understanding around these important relationships, which are critical to the future of medical innovation."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel