[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5029-S5033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAYMENTS TO PHYSICIANS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, starting last year, I started looking at
the financial relationships between physicians and drug companies. I
first began this inquiry by examining payments from Astra Zeneca to Dr.
Melissa DelBello, a professor of psychiatry at the University of
Cincinnati.
In 2002, Dr. DelBello published a study that found that Seroquel
worked for kids with bipolar disorder. The study was paid for by Astra
Zeneca, and the following year that company paid Dr. DelBello around
$100,000 for speaking fees and honoraria. In 2004, Astra Zeneca paid
Dr. DelBello over $80,000.
Today, I would like to talk about three physicians at Harvard Medical
School--Drs. Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer, and Timothy Wilens. They
are some of the top psychiatrists in the country, and their research is
some of the most important in the field. They have also taken millions
of dollars from the drug companies.
Out of concern about the relationship between this money and their
research, I asked Harvard and Mass General Hospital last October to
send me the conflict of interest forms that these doctors had submitted
to their institutions. Universities often require faculty to fill these
forms out so that we can know if the doctors have a conflict of
interest.
The forms I received were from the year 2000 to the present.
Basically, these forms were a mess. My staff had a hard time figuring
out which companies the doctors were consulting for and how much money
they were making. But by looking at them, anyone would be led to
believe that these doctors were not taking much money. Over the last 7
years, it looked like they had taken a couple hundred thousand dollars.
But last March, Harvard and Mass General asked these doctors to take
a second look at the money they had received from the drug companies.
And this is when things got interesting. Dr. Biederman suddenly
admitted to over $1.6 million dollars from the drug companies. And Dr.
Spencer also admitted to over $1 million. Meanwhile, Dr. Wilens also
reported over $1.6 million in payments from the drug companies.
The question you might ask is: Why weren't Harvard and Mass General
watching over these doctors? The answer is simple: They trusted these
physicians to honestly report this money.
Based on reports from just a handful of drug companies, we know that
even these millions do not account for all of the money. In a few
cases, the doctors disclosed more money than the drug companies
reported. But in most cases, the doctors reported less money.
For instance, Eli Lilly has reported to me that they paid tens of
thousands of dollars to Dr. Biederman that he still has not accounted
for. And the same goes for Drs. Spencer and Wilens.
What makes all of this even more interesting is that Drs. Biederman
and Wilens were awarded grants from the National Institutes of Health
to study the drug Strattera.
Obviously, if a researcher is taking money from a drug company while
also receiving Federal dollars to research that company's product, then
there is a conflict of interest. That is why I am asking the National
Institutes of Health to take a closer look at the grants they give to
researchers. Every year, the NIH hands out almost $24 billion in
grants. But nobody is watching
[[Page S5030]]
to ensure that the conflicts of interest are being monitored.
That is why Senator Kohl and I introduced the Physician Payments
Sunshine Act. This bill will require companies to report payments that
they make to doctors. As it stands right now, universities have to
trust their faculty to report this money. And we can see that this
trust is causing the universities to run afoul of NIH regulations. This
is one reason why industry groups such as PhRMA and Advamed, as well as
the American Association of Medical Colleges, have all endorsed my
bill. Creating one national reporting system, rather than relying on a
hodge-podge of state systems and some voluntary reporting systems, is
the right thing to do.
Before closing, I would like to say that Harvard and Mass General
have been extremely cooperative in this investigation, as have Eli
Lilly, Astra Zeneca and other companies. I ask unanimous consent that
my letters to Harvard, Mass General, and the NIH be printed the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2008.
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.
Director, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Dear Director Zerhouni: As a senior member of the United
States Senate and the Ranking Member of the Committee on
Finance (Committee), I have a duty under the Constitution to
conduct oversight into the actions of executive branch
agencies, including the activities of the National Institutes
of Health (NIH/Agency). In this capacity, I must ensure that
NIH properly fulfills its mission to advance the public's
welfare and makes responsible use of the public funding
provided for medical studies. This research often forms the
basis for action taken by the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Over the past number of years, I have become increasingly
concerned about the lack of oversight regarding conflicts of
interest relating to the almost $24 billion in annual
extramural funds that are distributed by the NIH. In that
regard, I would like to take this opportunity to notify you
about five problems that have come to my attention on this
matter.
First, it appears that three researchers failed to report
in a timely, complete and accurate manner their outside
income to Harvard University (Harvard) and Massachusetts
General Hospital (MGH). By not reporting this income, it
seems that they are placing Harvard and MGH in jeopardy of
violating NIH regulations on conflicts of interest. I am
attaching that letter for your review and consideration.
Second, I am requesting an update about a letter I sent you
last October on problems with conflicts of interest and NIH
extramural funding regarding Dr. Melissa DelBello at the
University of Cincinnati (University). In that letter, I
notified you that Dr. DelBello receives grants from the NIH,
however, she was failing to report her outside income to her
University.
Third, the Inspector General for the Department of Health
and Human Services Office (HHS OIG) released a disturbing
report last January which found that NIH provided almost no
oversight of its extramural funds. But your staff seemed to
show little interest in this report. In fact, Norka Ruiz
Bravo, the NIH deputy director of extramural programs was
quoted in The New York Times saying, ``For us to try to
manage directly the conflict-of-interest of an NIH
investigator would be not only inappropriate but pretty much
impossible.''
Fourth, I am dismayed to have read of funding provided to
several researchers from the Foundation for Lung Cancer:
Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment (Foundation). Dr.
Claudia Henschke and Dr. David Yankelevitz are two of the
Foundation's board members. As reported by The New York
Times, the Foundation was funded almost entirely with monies
from tobacco companies, and this funding was never fully
disclosed. Monies from the Foundation were then used to
support a study that appeared in The New England Journal of
Medicine (NEJM) back in 2006 regarding the use of computer
tomography screening to detect lung cancer. The NEJM
disclosure states that the study was supported also by NIH
grants held by Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz.
Regarding the lack of transparency by Dr. Henschke and Dr.
Yankelevitz, National Cancer Institute Director John
Niederhuber told the Cancer Letter, ``[W]e must always be
transparent regarding any and all matters, real or perceived,
which might call our scientific work into question.''
The NEJM later published a clarification regarding its
earlier article and a correction revealing that Dr. Henschke
also received royalties for methods to assess tumors with
imaging technology. There is no evidence that the
Foundation's tobacco money or Dr. Henschke's royalties
influenced her research. But I am concerned that the funding
source and royalties may have not been disclosed when the NIH
decided to fund Dr. Henschke.
Fifth, I sent you a letter on April 15, outlining my
concerns about a report on the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). That report found 45
cases at the NIEHS where extramural grants had not receiving
sufficient peer review scores but were still funded. This
finding is yet another example that the NIH provides little
oversight for its extramural program.
Dr. Zerhouni, you faced similar scandals back in 2003 when
it came to light that many NIH intramural researchers enjoyed
lucrative arrangements with pharmaceutical companies. It took
you some time, but you eventually brought some transparency,
reform and integrity back to NIH. As you told Congress during
one hearing, ``I have reached the conclusion that drastic
changes are needed as a result of an intensive review by NIH
of our ethics program, which included internal fact-finding
as well as an external review by the Blue Ribbon Panel.''
NIH oversight of the extramural program is lax and leaves
people with nothing more than questions--$24 billion worth of
questions, to be exact. I am interested in understanding how
you will address this issue. American taxpayers deserve
nothing less.
In the interim, I ask you to respond to the following
requests for information and documents. In responding to each
request, first repeat the enumerated question followed by the
appropriate response. Your responses should encompass the
period of January 1, 2000 to April 1, 2008. I would
appreciate receiving responses to the following questions by
no later than June 18, 2008:
1. Please explain what actions the NIH has or will initiate
to provide better oversight and transparency for its
extramural funding program.
2. Please explain how often the NIH has investigated and/or
taken action regarding a physician's failure to report a
``significant financial interest,'' as defined by NIH
regulation. For each investigation, please provide the
following information:
a. Name of the Doctor(s) involved;
b. Date investigation began and the date ended;
c. Specific allegations which triggered investigation;
d. Findings of the investigation; and
e. Actions taken by the NIH, if any.
3. Since receiving notice that the University of Cincinnati
was provided incomplete information from Dr. DelBello
regarding her outside income, what steps has/will NIH take to
address this issue? Please be specific.
4. Please provide a list of all NIH grants received by Dr.
DelBello. For each grant, please provide the following:
a. Name of grant;
b. Topic of grant; and
c. Amount of funding for grant.
5. Please provide a list of any other interactions that Dr.
DelBello has had with the NIH to include membership on
advisory boards, peer review on grants, or the like.
6. Since reports appeared in the press regarding the
undisclosed funding of the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early
Detection, Prevention & Treatment, what steps has/will NIH
take to address this issue? Please provide all external and
internal communications regarding this issue.
7. Please provide a list off all NIH grants received by Dr.
Claudia Henschke. For each grant, please provide the
following:
a. Name of grant;
b. Topic of grant; and
c. Amount of funding for grant.
8. Please provide a list of any other interactions that Dr.
Henschke has had with the NIH to include membership on
advisory boards, peer review on grants, or the like.
9. Please provide a list off all NIH grants received by Dr.
David Yankelevitz. For each grant, please provide the
following:
a. Name of grant;
b. Topic of grant; and
c. Amount of funding for grant.
10. Please provide a list of any other interactions that
Dr. Yankelevitz has had with the NIH to include membership on
advisory boards, peer review on grants, or the like.
11. Please provide a list off all NIH grants received by
Dr. Joseph Biederman. For each grant, please provide the
following:
a. Name of grant;
b. Topic of grant; and
c. Amount of funding for grant.
12. Please provide a list of any other interactions that
Dr. Biederman has had with the NIH to include membership on
advisory boards, peer review on grants, or the like.
13. Please provide a list off all NIH grants received by
Dr. Timothy Wilens. For each grant, please provide the
following:
a. Name of grant;
b. Topic of grant; and
c. Amount of funding for grant.
14. Please provide a list of any other interactions that
Dr. Wilens has had with the NIH to include membership on
advisory boards, peer review on grants, or the like.
I request your prompt attention to this matter and your
continued cooperation. I also request that the response to
this letter contain your personal signature. If you have any
questions please contact my Committee staff, Paul Thacker at
(202) 224-4515. Any formal correspondence should be sent
electronically in PDF searchable format to brian_
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
[[Page S5031]]
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2008.
Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust,
President, Harvard University,
Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, MA.
Dr. Peter L. Slavin,
President, Massachusetts General Hospital (Partners
Healthcare), Boston, MA.
Dear Drs. Faust and Slavin: The United States Senate
Committee on Finance (Committee) has jurisdiction over the
Medicare and Medicaid programs and, accordingly, a
responsibility to the more than 80 million Americans who
receive health care coverage under these programs. As Ranking
Member of the Committee, I have a duty to protect the health
of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and safeguard taxpayer
dollars appropriated for these programs. The actions taken by
thought leaders, like those at Harvard Medical School who are
discussed throughout this letter, often have a profound
impact upon the decisions made by taxpayer funded programs
like Medicare and Medicaid and the way that patients are
treated and funds expended.
Moreover, and as has been detailed in several studies and
news reports, funding by pharmaceutical companies can
influence scientific studies, continuing medical education,
and the prescribing patterns of doctors. Because I am
concerned that there has been little transparency on this
matter, I have sent letters to almost two dozen research
universities across the United States. In these letters, I
asked questions about the conflict of interest disclosure
forms signed by some of their faculty. Universities require
doctors to report their related outside income, but I am
concerned that these requirements are disregarded sometimes.
I have also been taking a keen interest in the almost $24
billion annually appropriated to the National Institutes of
Health to fund grants at various institutions such as yours.
As you know, institutions are required to manage a grantee's
conflicts of interest. But I am learning that this task is
made difficult because physicians do not consistently report
all the payments received from drug companies.
To bring some greater transparency to this issue, Senator
Kohl and I introduced the Physician Payments Sunshine Act
(Act). This Act will require drug companies to report
publicly any payments that they make to doctors, within
certain parameters.
I am writing to try and assess the implementation of
financial disclosure policies of Harvard University (Harvard)
and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH/Partners), (the
Institutions). In response to my letters of June 29, October
25, and October 26, 2007, your Institutions provided me with
the financial disclosure reports that Drs. Joseph Biederman,
Thomas Spencer, and Timothy Wilens (Physicians) filed during
the period of January 2000 through June 2007.
My staff investigators carefully reviewed each of the
Physicians' disclosure forms and detailed the payments
disclosed. I then asked that your Institutions confirm the
accuracy of the information. In March 2008, your Institutions
then requested additional information from the Physicians
pursuant to my inquiry. That information was subsequently
provided to me.
In their second disclosures to your Institutions, the
Physicians revealed different information than they had
disclosed initially to your respective Institutions. On April
29, 2008, I received notification from Harvard Medical
School's Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity that he has
referred the cases of these Physicians to the Standing
Committee on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment (``Standing
Committee''). The Chief Academic Officer (CAO), Partners
HealthCare System, also wrote me that Partners will look to
the Standing Committee to conduct the initial factual review
of potential non-compliance that are contained in both the
Harvard Medical School Policy and the Partners Policy. In
addition, the CAO stated that, in addition to the Standing
Committee's review process, Partners will conduct its own
independent review of conflicts of interest disclosures these
Physicians submitted separately to Partners in connection
with publicly funded research and other aspects of Partners
Policy. I look forward to being updated on these reviews in
the near future.
In addition, I contacted executives at several major
pharmaceutical companies and asked them to list the payments
that they made to Drs. Biederman, Spencer, and Wilens during
the years 2000 through 2007. These companies voluntarily and
cooperatively reported additional payments that the
Physicians do not appear to have disclosed to your
Institutions.
Because these disclosures do not match, I am attaching a
chart intended to provide a few examples of the data that
have been reported me. This chart contains three columns:
payments disclosed in the forms the physicians filed at your
Institutions, payments revealed in March 2008, and amounts
reported by some drug companies.
I would appreciate further information to see if the
problems I have found with these three Physicians are
systemic within your Institutions.
INSTITUTIONAL AND NIH POLICIES
Both Harvard and MGH/Partners have established an income de
minimus limit. This policy forbids researchers working at
your Institutions from conducting clinical trials with a drug
or technology if they receive payments over $20,000 from the
company that manufactures that drug or technology. Prior to
2004, the income de minimus limit established by your
institutions was $10,000.
Further, federal regulations place several requirements on
a university/hospital when its researchers apply for NIH
grants. These regulations are intended to ensure a level of
objectivity in publicly funded research, and state in
pertinent part that NIH investigators must disclose to their
institution any ``significant financial interest'' that may
appear to affect the results of a study. NIH interprets
``significant financial interest'' to mean at least $10,000
in value or 5 percent ownership in a single entity.
Based upon information available to me, it appears that
each of the Physicians identified above received grants to
conduct studies involving atomoxetine, a drug that sells
under the brand name Strattera. For example:
In 2000, the NIH awarded Dr. Biederman a grant to study
atomoxetine in children. At that time, Dr. Biederman
disclosed that he received less than $10,000 in payments from
Eli Lilly & Company (Eli Lilly). But Eli Lilly reported that
it paid Dr. Biederman more than $14,000 for advisory services
that year--a difference of at least $4,000.
In 2004, the NIH awarded Dr. Wilens a 5-year grant to study
atomoxetine. In his second disclosure to your Institutions,
Dr. Wilens revealed that he received $7,500 from Eli Lilly in
2004. But Eli Lilly reported to me that it paid Dr. Wilens
$27,500 for advisory services and speaking fees in 2004--a
difference of about $20,000.
It is my understanding that Dr. Wilens' NIH-funded study of
atomoxetine is still ongoing. According to Eli Lilly, it paid
Dr. Wilens almost $65,000 during the period January 2004
through June 2007. However, as of March 2008, and based upon
the documents provided to us to date, Dr. Wilens disclosed
payments of about half of the amount reported by Eli Lilly
for this period. Dr. Wilens also did three other studies of
atomoxetine in 2006 and 2007.
I have also found several instances where these Physicians
apparently received income above your institutions' income de
minimus limit. For instance, in 2003, Dr. Spencer conducted a
study of atomoxetine in adolescents. At the time, he
disclosed no significant financial interests related to this
study. But Eli Lilly reported paying Dr. Spencer over $25,000
that year.
In 2001, Dr. Biederman disclosed plans to begin a study
sponsored by Cephalon, Inc. At the time; Dr. Biederman
disclosed that he had no financial relationship with the
sponsor of this study. Yet, on his conflict of interest
disclosure, he acknowledged receiving research support and
speaking fees from Cephalon, Inc., but did not provide any
information on the amounts paid. In March 2008, Dr. Biederman
revealed that Cephalon, Inc. paid him $13,000 in 2001.
In 2005, Dr. Biederman began another clinical trial
sponsored by Cephalon, Inc., which was scheduled to start in
September 2005 and end in September 2006. Initially, Dr.
Biederman disclosed that he had no financial relationship
with the sponsor of this study. But in March 2008, Dr.
Biederman revealed that Cephalon, Inc. paid him $11,000 for
honoraria in 2005 and an additional $24,750 in 2006.
In light of the information set forth above, I ask your
continued cooperation in examining conflicts of interest. In
my opinion, institutions across the United States must be
able to rely on the representations of its faculty to ensure
the integrity of medicine, academia, and the grant-making
process. At the same time, should the Physician Payments
Sunshine Act become law, institutions like yours will be able
to access a database that will set forth the payments made to
all doctors, including your faculty members. Indeed at this
time there are several pharmaceutical and device companies
that are looking favorably upon the Physician Payments
Sunshine Bill and for that I am gratified.
Accordingly, I request that your respective institutions
respond to the following questions and requests for
information. For each response, please repeat the enumerated
request and follow with the appropriate answer.
1. For each of the NIH grants received by the Physicians,
please confirm that the Physicians reported to Harvard and
MGH/Partners' designated official ``the existence of [his]
conflicting interest.'' Please provide separate responses for
each grant received for the period from January 1, 2000 to
the present, and provide any supporting documentation for
each grant identified.
2. For each grant identified above, please explain how
Harvard and MGH/Partners ensured ``that the interest has been
managed, reduced, or eliminated?'' Please provide an
individual response for each grant that each doctor received
from January 2000 to the present, and provide any
documentation to support each claim.
3. Please report on the status of the Harvard Standing
Committee and additional Partners reviews of the
discrepancies in disclosures by Drs. Biederman, Spencer and
Wilens, including what action, if any, will be considered.
4. For Drs. Biederman, Spencer, and Wilens, please report
whether a determination can be made as to whether or not any
doctor violated guidelines governing clinical trials and the
need to report conflicts of interest to an institutional
review board (IRB). Please respond by naming each clinical
trial for which the doctor was the principal investigator,
along with confirmation that conflicts of interest were
reported, if possible.
[[Page S5032]]
5. Please provide a total dollar figure for all NIH monies
annually received by Harvard and MGH/Partners, respectively.
This request covers the period of 2000 through 2007.
6. Please provide a list of all NIH grants received by
Harvard and MGH/Partners. This request covers the period of
2000 through 2007. For each grant please provide the
following:
a. Primary Investigator;
b. Grant Title;
c. Grant number;
d. Brief description; and
e. Amount of Award.
Thank you again for your continued cooperation and
assistance in this matter. As you know, in cooperating with
the Committee's review, no documents, records, data or
information related to these matters shall be destroyed,
modified, removed or otherwise made inaccessible to the
Committee.
I look forward to hearing from you by no later than June
18, 2008. All documents responsive to this request should be
sent electronically in PDF format to Brian_Downey@finance-
rep.senate.gov. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact Paul Thacker at (202) 224-4515.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
SELECTED DISCLOSURES BY DR. BIEDERMAN AND RELATED INFORMATION REPORTED BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments Amount
Year Company Disclosure filed with revealed in company
institution March 2008 Reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ Not reported........... $2,000 $3,328
Eli Lilly & Company.... <$10,000............... 3,500 14,105
Pfizer Inc............. Not reported........... 7,000 7,000
2001................................ Cephalon............... No amount provided..... 13,000 n/a
GlaxoSmithKline........ No amount provided..... 5,500 4,428
Eli Lilly & Company.... No amount provided..... 6,000 14,339
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... 3,500 58,169
Medical Education Not reported........... 21,000 n/a
Systems.
Pfizer Inc............. No amount provided..... 5,625 5,625
2002................................ Bristol-Myers Squibb... No amount provided..... 2,000 2,000
Cephalon............... No amount provided..... 3,000 n/a
Colwood................ Not reported........... 14,000 n/a
Eli Lilly & Company.... No amount provided..... 11,000 2,289
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... Not 706
reported
Pfizer Inc............. No amount provided..... 4,000 2,000
2003................................ Bristol-Myers Squibb... No amount provided..... 500 250
Cephalon............... <10,000................ 4,000 n/a
Eli Lilly & Company.... <10,000................ 8,250 18,347
Johnson & Johnson...... <10,000................ 2,000 2,889
Medlearning............ Not reported........... 26,500 n/a
Pfizer Inc............. <10,000................ 1,000 1,000
2004................................ Bristol-Myers Squibb... No amount provided..... 6, 266 6,266
Cephalon............... Not reported........... 4,000 n/a
Eli Lilly & Company.... No amount provided..... 8,000 15,686
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... Not 902
reported
Medlearning............ Not reported........... 26,000 n/a
Pfizer Inc............. Not reported........... 3,000 4,000
2005................................ Cephalon............... Not reported........... 11,000 n/a
Eli Lilly & Company.... <20,000................ 12,500 7,500
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... Not 962
reported
Pfizer Inc............. Not reported........... 3,000 3,000
Medlearning............ Not reported........... 34,000 n/a
2006................................ Cephalon............... Not reported........... 24,750 n/a
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... Not 750
reported
Primedia............... Not reported........... 56,000 n/a
2007................................ Primedia............... Not reported........... 30,000 n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Dr. Biederman revealed in March 2008 that his outside income totaled about $1.6 million during the
period January 2000 through June 2007. Information reported by the pharmaceutical companies indicate that they
made additional payments that are not reflected in Dr. Biederman's disclosures.
Note 2: When a Physician named a company in a disclosure but did not provide an amount, the text reads ``no
amount reported.'' When a Physician did not list the company in the disclosure, the column reads ``not
reported.'' The Committee contacted several companies for payment information and the notation n/a (not
available) reflects that a company was not contacted.
SELECTED DISCLOSURES BY DR. SPENCER AND RELATED INFORMATION REPORTED BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments Amount
Year Company Disclosure filed with revealed in company
institution March 2008 reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ Not reported........... $3,000 $1,500
Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 12,345 11,463
2001................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ Not reported........... 4,000 1,000
Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 8,500 10,859
Strategic Implications. Not reported........... 16,800 n/a
2002................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ Not reported........... 3,000 3,369
Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 14,000 14,016
Strategic Implications. Not reported........... 29,000 n/a
2003................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 6.000 25,500
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... 1,250 0
Thomson Physicians Not reported........... 46,500 n/a
World.
2004................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... Not 23,000
reported
Pfizer Inc............. Not reported........... 3,500 3,500
2005................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... <$20,000............... 6,000 7,500
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... 1,500 227
Medlearning............ Not reported........... 28,250 n/a
2006................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... No amount provided..... 15,688 8,188
Johnson & Johnson...... Not reported........... 5,500 0
Primedia............... Not reported........... 44,000 n/a
2007................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... No amount provided..... 6,000 16,188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Dr. Spencer revealed in March 2008 that his outside income totaled about $1 million during the period
January 2000 through June 2007. Information reported by the pharmaceutical companies indicate that they made
additional payments that are not reflected in Dr. Spencer's disclosures.
Note 2: When a Physician named a company in a disclosure but did not provide an amount, the text reads ``no
amount reported.'' When a Physician did not list the company in the disclosure, the column reads ``not
reported.'' The Committee contacted several companies for payment information and the notation n/a (not
available) reflects that a company was not contacted.
SELECTED DISCLOSURES BY DR. WILENS AND RELATED INFORMATION REPORTED BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments Amount
Year Company Disclosure filed with revealed in company
institution March 2008 reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ Not reported........... $5,250 $12,009
Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 2,000 2,057
Pfizer Inc............. Not reported........... 1,250 2,250
TVG.................... Not reported........... 11,000 n/a
2001................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ <$10,000............... n/a 2,269
Eli Lilly & Company.... No amount provided..... 3,952 952
J.B. Ashtin............ Not reported........... 14,500 n/a
2002................................ GlaxoSmithKline........ Not reported........... 7,500 10,764
Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 4,500 3,000
Pfizer Inc............. Not reported........... 1,500 1,500
Phase 5................ Not reported........... 20,000 n/a
[[Page S5033]]
2003................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 12,000 0
Phase 5................ Not reported........... 90,500 n/a
TVG.................... Not reported........... 31,000 n/a
Medlearning............ Not reported........... 24,000 n/a
2004................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 7,500 27,500
Phase 5................ Not reported........... 84,250 n/a
Medlearning............ Not reported........... 46,000 n/a
2005................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... <20,000................ 9,500 9,500
Promedix............... Not reported........... 70,000 n/a
Advanced Health Media.. Not reported........... 37,750 n/a
2006................................ Eli Lilly and Physician No amount provided..... 5,963 12,798
World (Lilly).
Advanced Health Media.. Not reported........... 56,000 n/a
Primedia............... Not reported........... 32,000 n/a
2007................................ Eli Lilly & Company.... Not reported........... 9,000 14,969
Veritas................ Not reported........... 25,388 n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Dr. Wilens revealed in March 2008 that his outside income totaled about $1.6 million during the period
January 2000 through June 2007. Information reported by the pharmaceutical companies indicate that they made
additional payments that are not reflected in Dr. Spencer's disclosures.
Note 2: When a Physician named a company in a disclosure but did not provide an amount, the text reads ``no
amount reported.'' When a Physician did not list the company in the disclosure, the column reads ``not
reported.'' The Committee contacted several companies for payment information and the notation n/a (not
available) reflects that a company was not contacted.
____________________