PHARMA...en la guerra

 

Pharmaceutical industry response to the war in Ukraine

14 March 2022

The research-based pharmaceutical industry in Europe stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. 

We condemn the invasion of their country and express our sorrow at the suffering it has caused. As an industry dedicated to saving and improving lives, we stand for peace.

Our first priority is to ensure that medicines reach the patients that need them in Ukraine, in the neighbouring EU Member States, in Russia and in other countries where access to medicines may be negatively impacted. We call on all parties to facilitate the safe passage of medicines and vaccines to those in need.

As a health-based industry and part of the wider EU healthcare community, we will work together to address the health needs of all those affected by this war, in Ukraine and in neighbouring countries as part of the wider humanitarian relief effort.

Our Member Companies and Associations are offering humanitarian support both in Ukraine and for the emerging refugee crisis in neighbouring EU Member States. To date this includes in over 4.7 million doses of essential medicines and more than €28 million in financial support to NGOs.

Ver

Although many multinational companies have stopped operations in Russia or aren't sending their products there, large pharmaceutical companies are still shipping drugs to the country.

However, some companies are curtailing further investment or advertising activities.

GlaxoSmithKline, for example, said that it is stopping all advertising in the country and will not enter into contracts with the Russian government of military.

However, because the company believes everyone has a right to medicines, it will continue to supply its products to the country.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said that while the company is stopping further investment in the country, Pfizer too will continue to provide Russia with its medicines.

AstraZeneca  EVP, biopharmaceuticals unit, Ruud Dobber, speaking at the recent Cowen Healthcare Conference, said that the company has paused some of its trials in Russia and Ukraine, Endpoints News reported.

Endpoints also reported that Merck has stopped recruitment in some clinical trials in the two countries and Bristol-Myers Squibb suspended recruitment for trials in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that Johnson & Johnson will continue to provide essential products to Russia, while AmerisourceBergen will continue to supply certain cancer drugs and complete clinical trials there.

Several companies have also announced they are donating medicines and making contributions to non-profit organizations to support Ukraine. Novartis has donated essential medicines as well as made a $3M donation to three humanitarian organizations.

AbbVie is also donating drugs to the Ukrainian government and has donated $1M to non-profits

Ver

"Sol y sombras" sobre pagos de la Industria Farmacéutica en Europa...

.

Relationships between health professionals and pharmaceutical manufacturers can unduly influence clinical practice. 
These relationships are the focus of global transparency efforts, including in Europe. We conducted a descriptive content analysis of the transparency provisions implemented by February 2017 in nine European Union (EU) countries concerning payments to health professionals, with duplicate independent coding of all data. 
Using an author-generated, semi-structured questionnaire, we collected information from each disclosure policy/code on: target industries, categories of healthcare professionals covered, scope of payments included, location and searchability of the disclosed data.

Our analysis shows that although important improvements have been put in place in the past few years, significant gaps remain in disclosure requirements and their implementation. 
The situation differs substantially from country to country and the most striking differences are between governmental and self-regulatory approaches, especially with regard to the comprehensiveness of the disclosed data. In many cases, individuals can still opt out and reporting is incomplete, with common influential gifts such as food and drink excluded. 
Finally, in several countries data are only available as separate PDFs from companies, thus making the payment reports difficult to access and analyse. In order to overcome these gaps, minimum standards for disclosures should be implemented across Europe. 

All payments to healthcare professionals and organizations should be included, all health-related industries should be required to submit reports, and usability of disclosed data should be guaranteed. 

Beyond Transparency 

Transparency reporting is an important and necessary step but it is not a solution to undue influence from industry financing of health professionals. Such influence has been demonstrated both in relation to funding of ‘key opinion leaders’ via advisory board membership, speaker fees and contracts, and the ubiquitous everyday gifts of food and drink and invitations to events that feature in transparency databases. 

There is also some evidence of a “dose-response” in the relationship between funding and prescribing rates, with higher prescribing costs and more brand-name prescriptions among physicians in the highest quintile of industry funding, as well as increased prescribing of promoted products in relation to the numbers of meals received.
(Más)

Ver también: 
Pharma payments to docs in Europe are often inadequately reported or hard to find / Ed Silverman

ESPAÑA: Reflejo de la transparencia y reputación de la industria farmacéutica (I)

 La industria farmacéutica innovadora avanza en su compromiso de apostar por una ética empresarial transparente en sus relaciones con los profesionales sanitarios y las diversas administraciones con el fin último de avanzar en materia científica y contribuir a mantener un sistema de salud vanguardista y sostenible en el tiempo. 

 Como uno de los ejes del motor económico de España, este ejemplo de modelo de colaboración público-privada debe ser, por definición, un espejo para el resto de sectores. Los esfuerzos de las compañías farmacéuticas por alcanzar estas metas son públicos y notorios en estos últimos años, como bien reflejan las iniciativas puestas en marcha por la EFPIA desde 2010 que se han visto reforzadas por el Código de Buenas Prácticas de Farmaindustria en 2014 y su reciente actualización en la que se comenzarán a hacer públicas , y de manera individualizada, las transferencias de valor entre industria y profesionales sanitarios.

Además, en la actualidad la propia patronal de los laboratorios innovadores trabaja en una guía de comunicación que enriquezca las especificaciones del Código sobre cómo deben comunicar sus socios, incidiendo en la correcta distinción entre promoción e información para garantizar el derecho y el deber que la industria tiene de informar. De esta manera se están estableciendo las herramientas concretas de comunicación periodística de las que se pueden valer las compañías para dotar a los medios y a la población de información. Es decir, continuar la senda de una relación transparente a todos los niveles.

Llegados a este punto, desde la división de Salud de  

Weber Shandwick hemos querido analizar si los grandes esfuerzos que se están realizando realmente están llegando a la sociedad. Es evidente que los últimos acontecimientos socioeconómicos –crisis financiera, inestabilidad política a nivel nacional, redistribuciones presupuestarias en materia sanitaria, eclosión del papel de las asociaciones de pacientes o la publicación de incumplimientos de compliance de algunos laboratorios– han influido en el imaginario de la población española, obligando a las organizaciones a adaptarse e incrementar sus esfuerzos en materia de transparencia. 

De esta manera, hemos realizado una encuesta de percepción a más de 30 periodistas y profesionales relevantes de la comunicación del ámbito de la salud y del sector farmacéutico , quienes son responsables de transmitir a través de los medios de comunicación el valor de las actividades que los laboratorios desarrollan en nuestro país. 
Ellos son conocedores del entorno y actúan como enlace con la población, informando sobre las actividades que se realizan en el sector.

Así, hemos obtenido una radiografía del “tablero” público de la reputación de las organizaciones sanitarias en nuestro país. 
En una época en la que la medición de resultados es clave para orientar la dirección de los planes empresariales, esperamos que esta guía de indicaciones y sugerencias de los propios medios sirva de utilidad.

Ver informe/descargar

A la Efpia (Richard Bergström) le gusta el TTIP.

Un estudio avala el TTIP por ser una oportunidad de ahorro y crecimiento para la industria 

"A la luz de estos resultados, no es de extrañar que la industria farmacéutica apoye los esfuerzos por negociar un capítulo farmacéutico ambicioso dentro del acuerdo del TTIP", ha dicho el director general de Efpia, Richard Bergström. 

 R. G. R. | rosario.garcia@correofarmaceutico.com | 25/05/2016

El tratado de libre comercio entre Europa y Estados Unidos (TTIP) "representa una oportunidad evidente para mejorar el funcionamiento del mercado transatlántico para los productos farmacéuticos, reducir los costes comerciales innecesarios y evitar las divergencias normativas futuras, mientras que al mismo tiempo se logren ahorros en el acceso a los medicamentos innovadores". 

Así lo concluye un estudio realizado por la patronal europea de la industria innovadora, Efpia, titulado How a strong pharma chapter in TTIP will benefit the EU, en el que se hacen unas previsiones de aumento de las exportaciones farmacéuticas desde la Unión Europea de 9.000 millones de euros, así como la creación de 19.000 empleos dentro de la industria del viejo continente y otros 60.000 indirectos en el resto de la UE. 

El estudio, al que ha tenido acceso CF, ha sido realizado por Copenhagen Economics -una consultora económica- el estudio fue encargado por la EFPIA. "El acuerdo de libre comercio entre Estados Unidos y Europa necesita un apoyo activo ahora más que nunca. El Parlamento puede y debe desempeñar un papel activo en el mantenimiento de las negociaciones. El estudio de la Efpia pone de relieve el valor que el acuerdo puede aportar a través de la alineación de los sistemas de regulación, lo que reducirá las barreras comerciales y beneficiará a los ciudadanos y las empresas en ambos lados del Atlántico ", ha afirmado el eurodiputado Christofer Fjellner. (Más)

Ver también: 

TTIP: Las razones de...una "sinrazón"...según la EFPIA

CPhI: 2015 Mega Trade Pacts and Their Impact On the Pharmaceutical Markets, Dilip G. Sha (II): Generics

Greek "no" vote and pharma business...

The Greek 'no' vote has thrown the country and the EU into turmoil, although the pharmaceutical industry insists there is no reason for concern about the medicines supply. 

The Greek people's landslide rejection of the latest bailout offer from its EU and International Monetary Fund lenders - which would have meant continued austerity - makes the country's exit from the Eurozone more likely but not a certainty. 

 It has already resulted in the resignation of Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and politicians around the EU are now scrabbling to organise emergency negotiations to see if an agreement can be found to prevent a default on Greek's debts. 

The impact of the vote is still hard to gauge however and all eyes are now on the European Central Bank to see if it will provide emergency liquidity funding to Greek banks - which are running perilously low on cash - in order to allow them to open for business tomorrow. 

From a healthcare perspective, the political firestorm in Greece has raised concerns that pharma companies may start limiting deliveries to Greece, as occurred in 2011 and 2012 when some hospitals started to default on payments for medicines.

Ver:

Roche "cierra el grifo" a Grecia y...advierte a España (?)

The Hellenic Association of Pharmaceutical Companies (SFEE) insists its members will continue to supply the Greek people during the crisis, although the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) warned last week that it was concerned shortages of life-saving medicines could occur in the event of a default on its debts or 'Grexit'.

As of June 2015, multinational pharma firms were owed more than €1.2bn, with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) indicating its members had not received money owed to Greek hospitals and the National Organization for Healthcare Provision (EOPYY) since December 2014, according to analysts at BMI research. 

The trade body has suggested that continuing to supply drugs to Greece without payment after a default would conflict with EU competition rules and would need approval from the European Commission. 

Measures would also be needed to prevent low-cost medicines flooding out of Greece via parallel trade channels in the event of an exit from the Eurozone, according to EFPIA, and it would be important to prevent other governments in Europe referencing Greek process in their own price-setting procedures. 

The SFEE - which represents both Greek and multinational drugmakers - insists it is in "constant and close cooperation with the Ministry of Health, doing everything possible to ensure the smooth and uninterrupted supply of the medicines distribution chain," and has already secured commitments from big pharma companies such as Roche, Novartis and Pfizer to keep supplies coming until at least the end of July. 

"It is clear that health and access of Greek patients to medicines and treatments must remain outside the frame of the political climate and far from any political exploitation effort." 

Meanwhile, the Greek government has also imposed new regulations that are impacting the pharma sector, including a requirement for doctors to prescribe a minimum percentage of generic drugs or face censure. 

 In a bid to prevent panic-buying and stockpiling, the PanHellenic Medical Association, which represents Greek doctors, issued a statement at the end of June in which it called for its members to prescribe drugs in "a scientific manner and according to the needs of each patient, and not according to any requests for patients drug supply." (Ver)

Ver también:

Grecia en el Top: High on drugs / Gasto farmacéutico per capita.

Muerte de un boticario / JulioCésar Iglesias

EFPIA será "transparente" en 2016. "Disclosure Code" / Y mientras...?

The “eyes of the world will be upon the industry” from next year as payments to doctors in Europe becomes mandatory - and pharma must embrace this change to help improve the poor public perception of this relationship. 

This is according to David Morrow, head of medical excellence at AstraZeneca UK, who was speaking at the CompliMed Compliance Conference in London. 

The conference was being held before new rules in Europe will from July 2016 mandate that all members of the EU pharma trade group EFPIA disclose the name of every doctor and healthcare organisation with which they worked, listing the amounts paid to each in consultancy, travel, training and other fees. 

Morrow said: “The eyes of the world will be upon us in 2016, and we must be aware of the negative perception from the media over these types of payments.”

Más

Asociaciones de Pacientes (II): Conflicto de intereses /Línea (a veces no tan... delgada) roja.

Click sobre imagen para ampliar. Lo dijo Peter Drucker: "The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer"

Y así lo entiende Roch Doliveux (UCB CEO):

"Everything derives from that. Patient-centricity is really nothing more than putting the patient at the heart of everything we do. And I mean everything that we do. Nor do we call our customers 'patients'. They are people who live with severe diseases. If we put people at the centre and do that well, everything else follows. If we address their medical needs, if we help them and make a difference to their lives, market share follows, profits follow, shareholder returns follow. That is why we start with that." (Más)

Y la "estrategia del paciente" como "stakeholder" es motivo de reuniones y cursos...

Con especial énfasis en el "increase product ROI"

Slides: 
F.Comas/Mesa ANIS"El e-paciente empoderado"
II Jornadas e-Salud Asturias

Cooperation with industry

 -EPF has been a member of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Think-Tank since 2003. This quarterly event is the occasion for patient organisations and the pharmaceutical industry to engage in dialogue on EU issues in the area of health and innovative medical research.
  
-EPF has also continued the bi-annual Patient-Medtech dialogue established in partnership with the medical devices industry association, EUCOMED, in 2011.
Ver
Ver también:

Asociaciones de Pacientes (I): Nuevo "producto blockbuster" / Nuevos targets...

TTIP: Las razones de...una "sinrazón"...según la EFPIA

Los cinco riesgos mayores para la ciudadanía europea serían los siguientes:

• 1. Pérdida de derechos laborales, ya que EEUU sólo ha suscrito 2 de los 8 Convenios fundamentales de la OIT. 
• 2. Limitación de los derechos de representación colectiva de los trabajadores. 
• 3. Olvido del principio de precaución en materia de estándares técnicos y de normalización industrial. 
• 4. Privatización de servicios públicos, por el establecimiento de una lista reducida de aquellos que no se pueden privatizar. 
• 5. Riesgo de rebaja salarial, teniendo en cuenta el efecto que pudiera tener el NAFTA -y los sueldos más bajos de México- y el eventual acuerdo transasiático.(Más)

A report published today by the Commons Network and civil society partners (Medicines in Europe Forum, Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, Salud por Derecho, HAI Europe and International Society of Drug Bulletins), shows that the pharmaceutical industry’s wish list for the TTIP is detrimental for public health, will increase the cost of medicines and undermines democratic processes. The analysis of the 5 most worrying proposals of the pharmaceutical industry’s wish list for the EU-US trade agreement reveals a real threat to European public health systems and democracy.(Más)

Pharmaceuticals, including direct lobbying of large pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and lobby groups such as EFPIA (Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association, representing multinationals such as Bayer, Eli Lilly, GSK, and Pfizer) and its US sister organisation PHRMA (lobbying largely for the same companies).(Más)

AllTrials (?): Big pharma "se aprovecha" (y moviliza) a los pacientes...en su favor.

The pharmaceutical industry has "mobilised" an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials. 

Drugs companies publish only a fraction of their results and keep much of the information to themselves, but regulators want to ban the practice. If companies published all of their clinical trials data, independent scientists could reanalyse their results and check companies' claims about the safety and efficacy of drugs. 

 Under proposals being thrashed out in Europe, drugs companies would be compelled to release all of their data, including results that show drugs do not work or cause dangerous side-effects. 

 While some companies have agreed to share data more freely, the industry has broadly resisted the moves. The latest strategy shows how patient groups – many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies – have been brought into the battle. 

The strategy was drawn up by two large trade groups, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and outlined in a memo to senior industry figures this month, according to an email seen by the Guardian. 

 The memo, from Richard Bergström, director general of EFPIA, went to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies. It was leaked by a drugs company employee. 

 The email describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with "mobilising patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data". Translated, that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare. 

 The lobbying is targeted at Europe where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that companies have filed, and where negotiations around the clinical trials directive could force drug companies to publish all clinical trial results in a public database. 

 "Some who oppose full disclosure of data fear that publishing the information could reveal trade secrets, put patient privacy at risk, and be distorted by scientists' own conflicts of interest. While many of the concerns are valid, critics say they can be addressed, and that openness is far more important for patient safety." (Más)

"Getting the right information to patients 

is a more pressing issue for the pharma industry 

than transparency of trial data," 

Roch Doliveux Ceo UCB

Slide: F.Comas/ Phamaggedon 2012. El día después...

Hace tiempo lo venimos denunciando...

Ver también:
AllTrials en PHARMACOSERÍAS

Pharma "promotional gifts" en rebeldia...

The pharma industry could face a series of lawsuits by manufacturers of promotional gifts as new rules look to ban the items from next year.

The legal threat has been issued by the European Promotional Product Association (EPPA), a trade body, which has written to EU competition authorities claiming the move violates antitrust law.

It adds that it also threatens the livelihood of its several thousand members producing pens, notepads, and USB memory sticks handed out by drug company marketing representatives.

It is estimated that the deals between EPPA members and the industry generate around €500 million a year in the sales.

Hans Poulis, head of EPPA, told the Financial Times: “We are not happy with this initiative. We are pretty sure that giving away a quite cheap ball pen or sticky notes will not have an impact on prescribing a certain brand.”

This comes as new regulations from the pharma lobby group EFPIA will stop the distribution of promotional items from next year. In recent times these gifts have included company and medicine logos stamped on pens, notepads and clothing, which are all aimed at doctors attending scientific conferences.

But the practice has come under scrutiny by the public and even the industry itself, leading to the new voluntary rules which come into place in just six months. (Más) 

Ver tambien...

Pharma gift bans for budding doctors have long-term impact ■ 

Medical school and residency rules on industry-provided meals and other perks appear to influence prescribing once physicians are in practice. (Más)

EFPIA: En el "performance BMJ" prefiere "cerrar telón".../ Conflicto de "teloneros"

The BMJ's  open data campaign  aims to achieve appropriate and necessary independent scrutiny of data from clinical trials. Working with others, we seek to highlight the problems caused by lack of access to data, and we welcome any suggestions on how to take things further.
Ver

Algunos abrieron "a medias"

The announcement this week that the BMJ will publish clinical trials only if the researchers have agreed to provide detailed patient level data when requested has been applauded by the drug firm GlaxoSmithKline.

Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, said in an editorial that the journal “will require this commitment for all clinical trials of drugs and devices—whether industry funded or not—from January 2013.”
In response, Patrick Vallance, president of pharmaceuticals research and development at GSK, said: “GSK fully supports the commitment made today by BMJ to drive greater transparency of clinical trial data.(Ver)



EFPIA rejects ‘indiscriminate’ transparency

Europe’s pharma trade body has poured tepid water on the idea of open access to clinical trial data, saying that an‘indiscriminate’ approach may cause ‘significant harm’.
Lack of trial transparency is one of the key accusations that critics such as Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Pharma, routinely level against the industry.
But the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) believes that what it calls ‘responsible’ transparency is the only sensible way forward.
Richard Bergström, the body’s director general, said: “We recognise that we have a responsibility to show leadership in advancing transparency.”
But he went on: “There is a potential for significant harm to the interests of innovators and individuals if transparency is approached in an indiscriminate way.”

.../...   The doctor and author also suggests there is not enough clarity around company involvement, researcher payment or sponsor interference in trials, and he says that pharma uses data highly selectively.
The worry for pharma is that publishing everything would mean that patients and doctors - and perhaps investors - may draw the wrong conclusions from research that has not hit the mark. (Más) 

Ver también:
 Ratón de biblioteca: "Bad Pharma" / Ben Goldacre

Asi va lo del IVA...

Fuente:EFPIA / el Economista /

España: Salud no tan "sana"...o Diagnóstico "a pedido"?

Ver


España ocupa la posición 24 en el Índice de Consumidores de la Sanidad Europea (EHCI, por sus siglas en inglés), un ránking que evalúa la calidad de los servicios sanitarios de 32 países europeos elaborado por el centro de análisis Health Consumer Powerhouse


Se ha presentado en el Parlamento Europeo en Bruselas el Índice de Consumidores de la Sanidad Europea (EHCI, por sus siglas en inglés) (se puede descargar) para 2012, en el que la sanidad española ocupa el puesto 24o


. En esta comparativa, los Países Bajos obtienen 872 puntos (de los 1.000 posibles), seguidos de Dinamarca con 822, Islandia con 799, Luxemburgo con 791 y Bélgica con 783. La puntuación conseguida por España es de 603 puntos, lo que la sitúa en la posición 24a de 34 países (y que significa un descenso respecto de la 22a posición que había obtenido en el EHCI de 2009).

El EHCI es un índice que desde 2005 publica el centro de análisis Health Consumer Powerhouse (HCP), con sede en Suecia.

¿Qué podría explicar el hecho de que la posición de España en este ranking haya ido empeorando desde 2005?

• - El doctor Arne Bjönberg, jefe de operaciones de HCP y responsable del equipo del EHCI 2012, considera que la crisis económica es algo bastante reciente y que no puede explicar el continuo deterioro de la sanidad española. El principal motivo de los largos tiempos de espera no es la falta de recursos, sino una cuestión de actitudes y de organización. En el informe, sorprende constatar que algunos países ricos como Noruega y Suecia son los que presentan los mayores problemas de acceso de toda Europa.

• - La sanidad española carece de transparencia y de participación de los pacientes. A pesar de tratarse de un sistema que cuenta con financiación pública, la desigualdad está aumentando y el acceso al cuidado bucodental o a la vacuna tetravírica es mediocre. El hecho de que Españaencabece la lista en cuanto a trasplante de órganos, no compensa los muchos otros puntos débiles del tratamiento sanitario.

• - Parece que ha llegado el momento de preguntarse si el sistema sanitario español es sostenible. El doctor Bjönberg señala que debe cuestionarse si la financiación pública a través de los impuestos y la regionalización del sistema son las medidas adecuadas.

Entre los financiadores del EHCI de 2012 (subvenciones no restrictivas) la EFPIA (Federación Europea de Asociaciones de la Industria Farmacéutica), Pfizer Inc, Novartis SA y Medicover SA.

Ver también:

Ministro analisa 'ranking' pouco favorável para Portugal

Asi es el ´lobby´ de la industria farmacéutica en Europa: 40 millones de €

• Bayer AG, MSD y GSK fueron las compañías que más invirtieron según el Registro Europeo de Transparencia

• Patronales y consultoras engrosan el grupo de entidades que tratan de influir en la política comunitaria

La política comunitaria europea cuenta cada día con más componentes que la asemejan al modelo americano. Entre ellos destaca la posibilidad de emprender acciones de lobbying, para que los sectores económicos puedan influir en las políticas que emergen de las instituciones que gobiernan el continente. Un ejemplo de ello lo encontramos en la industria farmacéutica, que gasta anualmente (entre laboratorios, patronales y consultoras) unos 40 millones de euros en este concepto, según un informe de la Health Action International (HAI) y el Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) sobre los datos del Registro Europeo de Transparencia.

Tal y como señala el estudio, son 23 las compañías que están inscritas en el Registro Europeo, en torno al 20 por ciento de las que forman parte de la patronal Efpia. El gasto aproximado que estas realizan cada ejercicio es de unos 18,9 millones de euros, aunque los autores advierten que la cifra es relativa si se tiene en cuenta que la inscripción es voluntaria en Europa y que se han identificado algunos desfases entre la cantidad declarada y la inversión real.

Al margen de esto, cabe señalar que entre los laboratorios que más dinero destinaron a hacer lobby destacan Bayer AG, con más de 2,5 millones de euros, Merck Sharp & Dhome con 900.000 y GlaxoSmithKline, que declaró un gasto de unos 825.000 euros a durante el ejercicio 2011. Por detrás quedaron compañías como Pfizer (700.000 euros), Novartis (700.000 euros), Genzyme (600.000 euros), Amgen (550.000 euros), AstraZeneca (500.000 euros) y Bayer Healthcare (500.000 euros), que completaron el top ten de las firmas que más invirtieron en influir en la política europea y que gastan grandes sumas en hacer lo mismo en EEUU.

Click sobre imagen para ampliar.

Más

Y en USA...

USA: Pharma Lobbying...