Tag: Prescription Drugs

Dear Commissioner Hamburg:   I write regarding recent reports describing the improper relationship between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, private companies have paid thousands of dollars to participate in FDA advisory panel discussions concerning federal regulations for prescription painkillers. These allegations clearly demonstrate a conflict of interest by allowing pharmaceutical companies to have undue influence over the FDA’s decision making process. I plan to call for a full congressional investigation into this issue to determine whether these relationships have impacted the FDA’s rescheduling of hydrocodone combination drugs.   According to reports, two medical professors organized a panel in consultation with the FDA on how to test the safety and effectiveness of painkillers. According to e-mails between these two professors, pharmaceutical companies paid as much as $25,000 each to have a seat at the table with FDA officials.  When challenged by the companies on the cost, one of the professors responded that “20k is small change, and they can justify it easily if they want to be at the table.” The professor continued to justify the high cost of admission to these closed-door meetings by pointing out that the pharmaceutical companies are “impact[ing] FDA thinking…for very little money.”   The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of various products, including painkillers. This task requires the FDA to evaluate scientific data and put the public first.  These recent reports raise serious doubts about the FDA’s ability to make objective and scientifically based decisions regarding the proper treatment of prescription painkillers.  Even worse, when challenged by another federal agency, the National Institutes of Health, on the stigma of this “pay to play process,” the FDA balked and continued with the arrangement.   The painkiller industry is a booming business, with profits growing to $9 billion in the United States. As the painkiller market grows, so does the “epidemic” of addiction and abuse.  Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) demonstrates the role that opioid pain relievers play in overdose deaths.  The CDC study showed that drug overdose deaths increased for eleven straight years since 1999.  Sixty percent of the drug overdose deaths (22,134) involved pharmaceutical drug products, and prescription drug products containing oxycodone, hydrocodone, methadone and others represented three-quarters of those deaths (16,651).  This is a problem that the FDA must address.   As we have discussed on many occasions, I have been urging the FDA to reschedule hydrocodone combination drugs from Schedule III to Schedule II.  In spite of these conversations, I continue to be frustrated with the amount of time the FDA has taken to properly schedule these drugs. It has been 4 years since the second petition requesting that the FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluate the proper scheduling of hydrocodone combination drugs. Even more concerning, it has been over 8 months since I testified at the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee (DSaRM) where the FDA’s own advisory panel, consisting of leading scientists and researchers in the field, overwhelmingly voted to recommend rescheduling hydrocodone combination drugs.   These press reports raise troubling questions about the FDA’s delay in issuing a recommendation regarding this petition. I truly hope that the FDA is not allowing their relationship with the pharmaceutical industry to influence their duty to protect the American public.   Mr. Douglas Throckmorton, a deputy director of the agency, said that because the panel was not initiated by the FDA, the rules prohibiting “pay to play” did not apply. I find that claim questionable and truly hope that the FDA will rethink their extremely misguided policy on this matter.   If the FDA is seriously alleging that its conduct is proper and that payments by the pharmaceutical industry to participate in closed-door advisory panels is not impacting its decisions, then the FDA should have no problem disclosing the following information to my office in a prompt manner:     The location, date and time of all meetings, discussion panels and conferences attended by FDA personnel where private companies, individuals and/or interest groups were able to attend if payments over $1,000 were made to the FDA or the organizing entity. Examples of these meetings, discussion panels and conferences were described in the Washington Post article “Pharmaceutical Firms Paid to Attend Meetings of Panel that Advises FDA,” Peter Whoriskey, Oct. 6, 2013; The location, date and time of all meetings, discussion panels and conferences organized by Professors Robert Dworkin and/or Dennis Turk that involved the FDA; A list of all companies that paid to attend the meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet and the amounts that they paid; The topics of discussion at these meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet; All recommendations arising from these meetings, discussion panels and conferences; All e-mails written by Professors Robert Dworkin, Dennis Turk, and Mr. Douglas Throckmorton or anyone else at the FDA regarding these meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet; The total cost of each of these meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet broken down by category of disbursements (e.g., food costs, venue costs, etc.); Any funds related to these meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet that directly went to the FDA or any individuals at the FDA; All individuals who attended these meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet; A list of all former FDA employees who left the FDA for employment at any company that paid funds to attend these meetings, discussion panels and conferences described in the first bullet. I respectfully request responses to these requests in a prompt and timely manner. I look forward to your answers.