Such financial contributions, which firms don’t disclose, could lead to policy distortions and manipulation
Drawing parallels to the US, two policy experts suggest that pharmaceutical firms contributed to Canada’s opioid crisis by paying money to Canadian patient advocacy groups to promote their own interests.
“A United States congressional report revealed last year that five opioid manufacturers made more than $10 million in payments to patient advocacy groups and professional societies between 2012 and 2017,” wrote Itai Bavli of the University of British Columbia and Joel Lexchin, professor emeritus of Health Policy and Management at York University.
According to the report, such groups “may have played a significant role in creating the necessary conditions for the U.S. opioid epidemic” through actions such as echoing recommendations for increased opioid use and lobbying for changes to laws aimed at limiting opioid use.
“[E]vidence shows that, similar to the U.S., opioid manufacturers fund such organizations in Canada,” the Bavli and Lexchin said.
Citing published work from bioethicist Sharon Batt, the two said that patient advocacy groups in Canada, when acting in alliance with pharmaceutical companies, can end up calling for policies and changes that go against public health and the interests of their members.
One pain-management event organized by the Canadian Pain Society in 2005, they said, was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Purdue Pharma Canada. A 2007 conference held by the society also included a Purdue Pharma symposium.
The pair also noted that Eli Lilly Canada, Purdue Canada, and Merck Frosst Canada all gave money to the Chronic Pain Association of Canada. The association has published a blog post on its website that favours increased opioid use and criticizes arguments against opioid effectiveness as “hysteria and propaganda” from prominent “anti-opioid activists.”
“Two years ago, Purdue donated just shy of $1 million to Canadian health-care organizations, some of which could have been patient groups,” the pair added, noting that the way the information is reported prevented the identification of specific recipients.
“[U]sing the vulnerability and the suffering of patients as a tool for maximizing profit is morally wrong,” Bavli and Lexchin declared. “Neither the industry nor advocacy organizations are required to fully and routinely disclose their financial ties … We call for the Canadian government to examine and disclose all payments from pharmaceutical companies to non-profit patients’ advocacy groups and societies.”
