Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13131

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: report

Petersen K
Washington Datamining Bill Defeated In House In Squeaker
: National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Price 2008 Mar 12
http://www.reducedrugprices.org/read.asp?news=1195

Abstract:

Often, a legislative session is marked as much by what doesn’t happen as what does. That was the case for the Washington Legislature this winter, which came very close to passing a ban on prescriber datamining. SB 6241 and HB 2664, bills prohibiting the sale and use of prescriber-identifiable record for marketing purposes, received broad-based support from physician, health and consumer groups in the Evergreen State, and many of them came together under the umbrella of the Coalition for Prescribing Integrity (CRxI).

The Coalition, which includes Healthy Washington, Washington State Medical Association, National Physician’s Alliance, AARP, and the Washington State Labor Council and others, led a dynamic educational campaign on data mining, and enjoyed coverage in the region’s major dailies and support from a popular local columnist.

Opponents of the bill, including IMS Health and PhRMA, lobbied lawmakers aggressively, and in public hearings called the law redundant, touting as effective protection the provisions of the current American Medical Association opt-out – which only one percent of all Washington doctors have participated in, to date.

The bill, which passed the Senate in February by a 26-22 margin, fell one to two votes short and did not come to a vote in the House.

Kate Petersen from the Prescription Project talked with Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43), the House sponsor of the bill, about what the defeat of the Prescription Privacy bill means on Washington’s legislative scene and on the national health care stage.

KP: How did you learn about datamining as an issue?

JP: Rep. Eileen Cody, who chairs the House Health Care & Wellness Committee, asked me (as one of the freshmen legislators just joining the committee) to work on this issue. I met with doctors and other medical professionals who told me about the use of data mining and the effects that it has on prescribing behavior. It was not an issue I had ever heard of before — but the more I learned about it, the more I became convinced that data mining was an important driver of healthcare costs that needed to be controlled.

KP: Were you surprised it didn’t come to a vote?

JP: Not really. In the 2007 session, we fell far short of the votes to pass the bill. This year, we were much closer — but in a short session we have a very limited ability to pass controversial ideas. The intense lobbying on this bill by the drug industry created enough doubt and confusion that we could not bring the bill to the floor for a vote in the House (it did pass the Senate 26-22).

KP: How intense was the lobbying and internal (legislative) debate, and how intense was it as a public issue this session?

JP: Very intense. The Coalition for Prescribing Integrity did a great job talking with members and educating them about this issue. There was good press coverage of the bill as well. And we clearly had more support this year than last year. It will be interesting to see the public disclosure reports on drug company payments to the lobbyists working on this bill. I am sure that they were substantial.

KP: Do you think datamining will be an issue taken up by Washington in the future? If so, where do you see it falling among next session’s health care priorities?

JP: At this point, I think a lot depends on the outcome of the litigation in the First Circuit. If the Court of Appeals upholds the New Hampshire law, then I think we will have a good reason to come back and overcome some of the arguments from the other side (for example, that our state would be forced into an expensive lawsuit that would not be successful and would waste taxpayer money; or that the law would violate the first amendment to the US Constitution). If the district court decision is affirmed, then I think this approach becomes much more difficult and we may need to seek other ways to control these costs.

KP: What bearing do you think the Washington experience on the national landscape of prescription reform?

JP: Our experience over the last two sessions illustrates the more general problem that we face in all healthcare reform. We want all people to have access to affordable care — but we cannot afford that unless we do something about costs. We can’t do something about costs unless we reduce the revenue of some current stakeholder (drug companies, insurance companies, doctors, nursing homes, hospitals, trial lawyers, etc.) And the concentrated interest that each of those groups has in its revenue stream causes it to fight intensely against reform that is contrary to its financial interest. That’s understandable — but it makes it more challenging then for the public interest to be protected. That’s why the coalition effort this year was such an important first step in putting together folks whose interest is the public interest. I hope we will see more of that in the future.