In a letter from Senator Grassley to Stanford University covered by Businessweek, Drugmakers and College Labs: Too Cozy? and the Wall Street Journal Blog, Grassley Questions Stanford Psychiatrist’s Industry Ties .
The Senator alleged in the Congressional Record that the Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Stanford, Alan Schatzberg, MD failed to report to Stanford some payments from 2000 to 2006 from Eli Lilly (LLY) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) for consulting and other services.
Grassley also chastised Dr. Schatzberg for not fully informing the university about the value of his personal stake in a drug development company he co-founded—although the psychiatrist appears to have followed Stanford’s disclosure rules.
"I am concerned that Stanford might not have been able to adequately monitor the degree of Dr. Schatzberg’s conflicts of interest," Grassley said in a June 23rd letter to Stanford President John Hennessy that was published in the Congressional Record. The senator suggested the university reexamine its disclosure policies.
But a letter from Stanford to Senator Grassley shows that he did in-fact, disclose his payments from both Elil Lilly and Johnson and Johnson, and that the Senators staff had perhaps made a mistake:
1. Statement that Dr. Schatzberg had not disclosed a $22,000 payment from Johnson & Johnson in 2002. Dr. Schatzberg did disclose this payment to the University and reported it to the Committee. He disclosed the $22,000 payment from Janssen, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that made the payment.
2. Statement that Dr. Schatzberg did not report the $52,134 that Eli Lilly disclosed for 2004; however, Dr. Schatzberg disclosed three different sources of compensation from the company for that year: less than $10,000 for advisory board, $10,000 to $50,000 for consultation, and $10,000 to $50,000 for honoraria. Together, this disclosure fully accounts for the 2004 payments from Lilly. A chart attached to the letter states that Dr. Schatzberg had not disclosed receiving a payment from Eli Lilly in 2007. That is simply an error. Dr. Schatzberg did disclose that payment, both to Stanford and to the Committee.
3. Other discrepancies noted in the letter may be the result of differences in record
keeping between Stanford and pharmaceutical companies, the fact that companies’ fiscal years may differ from Stanford’s and misunderstandings by the Committee.
In a follow-up letter Stanford stated:
“Schatzberg did disclose in writing his ownership of the Corcept stock and its actual value, so Stanford did know the value of his stock based on his disclosures to the university.”
According to another article in CBSNews.com, Senator Grassley is investigating some 20 top medical schools – including Harvard, Stanford and the University of Cincinnati “for under reporting the income top researchers are getting from the drug industry.”
Senator Grassley is using this information to promote his Physician Payment Sunshine Act .
In his floor statement, the Senator opens about one other doctor who reported $10,000 when in fact he received $14,000, a four thousand dollar difference between the University and the company, hardly the stuff to condemn a man from the floor of the senate.
In the interest of fair play we encourage Senator Grassley and his staff to verify with the institutions and physicians in question prior to publishing their names and offenses in the Congressional Record. It is the least we owe these dedicated researchers if we want others to go into the research in the future.