A Senate panel overseeing federal drug programs has expanded its investigation into whether the "educational grants" drugmakers give to states and healthcare organizations are more focused on marketing than education.

The Senate Finance Committee is calling on Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and 22 other companies, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, to provide further information about their educational grant programs because earlier industry submissions have raised additional Senate concerns. According to a Jan. 9 letter from committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking Democratic member Max Baucus (D-Mont.), industry responses to their original June 9, 2005, request raised further questions about the role of sales and/or marketing representatives in these grants.

Based on the information the companies provided "it appears that many manufacturers', sales and/or marketing personnel still have a role in the originating or evaluating grant requests, and consequently, the potential for abuse remains. We remain concerned about the direct and indirect influence that manufacturers may have" on professional societies and patient advocacy organizations, the letter states.

For instance, in J&J's response, the company provided documentation showing sales and marketing representatives were directly involved in authorizing educational grants. "The apparently significant role played by marketing in approving these grants suggests that education may have been secondary to the promotion of Propulsid. In fact, a number of the payments have no apparent relation to education," the letter says.

The senators' original request sought information on the factors and circumstances the company takes into account when determining whether to award an educational grant, among other topics. The request was based on reports claiming some companies have awarded grants to healthcare providers as inducements to prescribe their medications. The senators were particularly concerned with J&J's use of these grants in promoting pediatric use of its now-withdrawn heartburn drug Propulsid.

The senators also argue that the data J&J provided on its Propulsid grants raise questions about whether the industry funding compromised the independence of professional and patient advocacy organizations. For example, from 1996 to 2000, the company provided between $600,000 and $1 million to two medical specialty societies and one professional association, and more than $1.3 million to a patient advocacy organization.

Citing the advocacy group's financial records, the lawmakers argue that without these grants, the organization would have ceased to exist. The fact that the group dealt mainly with the pediatric population, but Propulsid was never approved for use with children, is "particularly questionable," the letter states.

"It's hard to see how you could call some of these grants 'educational,'" Grassley said. "Some groups have learned that their very survival depends on drug company money. In that case, it seems pretty obvious that their independence may be compromised. We need to look at just how beholden these groups are to the money they're getting."

(http://www.fdanews.com/did)