Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15299

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: news

Carlson HJ.
Proposal would restrict drug marketing
Post-Bulletin (Rochester MN) 2009 Mar 18
http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=16&a=390455

Full text:

ST. PAUL — Drug companies would no longer be able get detailed prescription information used to market products to doctors under a new bill.

Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, is sponsoring the measure, which would ban these companies from getting prescription records allowing them to target their marketing to specific doctors.

“Most physicians do not realize that this data is being collected and that their prescribing habits are monitored and that this data is being used for targeting them for marketing,” Liebling said.

The bill won approval by a vote of 11 to 7 in a House health care policy committee. Fellow Rochester Democratic Rep. Kim Norton opted to “pass” instead of vote on the bill. It now heads to the House Commerce and Labor Committee. A similar measure in the Senate is being sponsored by Sen. John Doll, DFL-Burnsville.

The bill is aimed at stopping prescription data mining. When a patient fills a prescription at a major pharmacy, that information — without the patient’s name — is sold to companies. This information is combined with detailed profiles of physicians sold by the American Medical Association. Drug companies can use this information to figure out what kind and how much of a drug a certain doctor is prescribing.

More than $12 billion is spent every year in direct marketing to doctors by pharmaceutical companies, according to Peter Wycoff, national consultant with The Prescription Project. This organization is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to eliminate real or perceived conflicts of interests in the medical profession. Wycoff told a House committee that money spent to market these products boosts drug costs by 17 percent.

Opposition

Opponents argue that there is no proof that the bill would lower drug costs. Cathy Betz, vice president of Wolters Kluwer Health, said use of generics has steadily climbed despite drug companies’ marketing efforts and that getting rid of this resource would likely require hiring more salespeople to market the drugs. In addition, other states that have enacted similar laws — including New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine — have all face legal challenges.

Other critics say the law could hurt companies that work with private employers and government to lower prescription drug costs and encourage them to use generics.

AMA support

The bill has the backing of the Minnesota Medical Association. Dr. Noel Peterson, association president and Olmsted Medical Center physician, said he knows some doctors who have been the subject of this direct marketing.

“Many times this is being targeted for you to be using the more expensive, trade-name medications rather than a less expensive, but equally effective, generic version,” Peterson said.

Norton questioned during last week’s committee hearing if the bill is necessary since doctors can opt out of the AMA’s profile. Wykoff said that of 4.1 million physicians, only 21,000 opt out, calling it “a terribly weak opt out.”

Liebling said her bill makes sure the information is still available for educational purposes. But she told committee members they should not expect drug companies to sign on to this effort.

“This is about big money. A lot of people have a big stake in this,” she said. “It is billions of dollars, and you are not going to get consensus because you’re going to tell people they cannot do something that is very lucrative to do.”