Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17706

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: Electronic Source

Silverman E
Connecticut Bill To Limit Gifts To Docs Dies Quietly
Pharmalot 2010 May 6
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/05/connecticut-bill-to-limit-gifts-to-docs-dies-quietly/

Full text:

A bill that would have gone into effect in Connecticut on July 1 to strictly limit gifts that drug and device makers could provide physicians and restrict the use of prescriber data died last night (this is the text). The bill hardly had bipartisan support as Democrats backed passage, while Republicans opposed (see here). For the legislation, which has been around while, to become law, the state assembly’s Public Health Committee must reintroduce the legislation during the next session beginning in January.
Instead, in a last-minute maneuver, another bill did pass that simply requires adherence to existing codes adopted by PhRMA and AdvaMed. “This gets most people where they wanted to be,” says state senator Jonathan Harris, who chairs the Public Health Committee. “You could call it a compromise.”
The initial bill would have required that drug and device makers adopt a code of conduct, along with training and monitoring to ensure compliance with the code; annually report all authorized payments or other goodies provided to health care providers that are individually in excess of $100; and prohibit direct payments or other compensation to health care providers, unless in exchange for a bona fide service.
As one might imagine, the bill was controversial. The state’s Department of Public Health opposed the measure, in part, because of the financial burden, while the state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal backed passage in hopes of limiting industry influence on the doctor-patient relationship. Other supports included the AARP, the Connecticut Medical Society and Consumers Union (see comments here).
Among those that opposed the bill were PhRMA, the New England Biotechnology Association, IMS Health, Boehringer Ingelheim and the Connecticut Caterers Association. One comment came from Ken Miller of the Connecticut Rheumatology Association, who worried that “the disclosure and publication requirement would make Connecticut a less desirable place to host clinical trials and other consultant-driven research as affiliated practitioners may not be comfortable having their names and compensation published on the state’s web site for other interactions with pharmaceutical companies.”