Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15590

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

Barlow D.
House passes strong ban on drug marketing
The Times Argus 2009 May 6
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090506/NEWS02/905060318/1003/NEWS02

Full text:

House lawmakers on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to the strongest ban in the country on pharmaceutical marketing to doctors and other prescribers.

Lawmakers easily approved the bill during a voice vote in the morning, although more pressure from opponents is expected Wednesday when the legislation comes up for a final approval. The bill has already passed the Vermont Senate.

Rep. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas, D-Bradford, a member of the House Health Care Committee, told fellow lawmakers that pharmaceutical companies spend 34 percent of their revenue marketing their products to doctors.

Studies have clearly shown that these marketing efforts – which can include free lunches, trips to industry conferences, cash payments and other gifts – affect how doctors prescribe medication, including prescribing newer, more expensive and possibly more dangerous drugs, she said.

“Many doctors and hospitals are already banning these types of gifts,” Copeland-Hanzas said.

Vermont already has some of the strongest regulations in the country on pharmaceutical marketing. Every year, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office compiles information on gifts and donations between the industry and medical professionals in the state; last year that amount totaled $2.9 million.

But key details in that state report – including the names of the doctors – are hidden behind a trade secret clause in Vermont law. This new bill, which is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, removes that protection and sets up an on-line, searchable database for these disclosures.

That’s a detail that worried some House Republicans on Tuesday. Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, said publishing the names, addresses and types of free samples of medication that a doctor receives from the industry on the Internet can invite criminals to target certain medical offices.

“I’m worried that there is an unknown consequence here,” Flory said. “I feel very uncomfortable letting the world know that Oxycontin or an opiate has been delivered to a physician.”

Copeland-Hanzas said she did not think that would be a concern because the state would only issue that report with those details once a year – meaning the information on the database will at least be more than six months old.

Republicans could not muster enough votes Tuesday to defeat the bill, although they are expected to offer an amendment Wednesday that would keep the names, addresses and types of free drug samples given to doctors away from public eyes.

Another amendment expected Wednesday is one from Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington. A supporter of the bill, Zuckerman said Tuesday that the transparency it brings to the relationship between the industry and doctors should be extended to the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers.

Zuckerman said his proposal would require lawmakers to report all gifts, ranging from pens all the way to expensive meals.

“This bill seems to be saying that we believe some doctors are more susceptible to influence, whether it be a $5 sandwich or a $100 dinner, than we as legislators,” Zuckerman said. “The truth is, all of us can be influenced by meals and gifts.”

Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, another supporter of the bill, said she applauds Zuckerman’s attempt at creating debate over lobbyists’ courting of lawmakers with free meals and drinks, but didn’t think this bill was the right venue for that.

“I find myself in reasonable disagreement,” she said.

Ken Libertoff, the executive director of the Vermont Association for Mental Health, which has pushed for the bill at the Statehouse this year, said he sees “support for the concept” of expanding the ban to also include lawmakers, but doesn’t want that possible amendment to damage the bill’s chances on Wednesday for its final vote.

“This is a bill of real consequences,” Libertoff said. “It sets a new standard for Vermont and the rest of the country to shift the environment between drug companies, physicians and consumers.”