Comments on: Reminder Bill Raises Privacy Concerns In California http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/reminder-bill-raises-privacy-concerns-in-california/ News, Comment and Conversation Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:35:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: CPRII http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/reminder-bill-raises-privacy-concerns-in-california/#comment-359559 CPRII Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:15:29 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14062#comment-359559 This is sad and I hope that all the PhRMA and Adheris lobbying money doesn't push this through. These tactics are pure aggressive and invasive marketing. Here is a question for Adheris and its pharmacy and Phrma customers. If all these reminder letters are not marketing, what are they? Well the Adheris answer is that they are important for patient care, for helping patients stay compliant with their meds. So I interpret that to mean it's not a marketing tactic, rather it's part of the practice of good pharmacy. But if that's the case, then why is it that Adheris and its pharmacy customers are only willing to send reminder letters when they are getting paid to do it? If it's just part of good pharmacy practice, why are they only sending them when they get paid? And why does big phrma need to draft all the marketing text on the letters? The legislators in California better take a hard look at some of the tactics. Look at some sample letters for products like Lipitor, Plavix, Crestor, Lovenox, Singulair, Actos etc etc. Ask to see samples. The letters are all drafted by the phrma companies with all sorts of marketing spin. And the tactics are very aggressive and invasive. Ask Adheris how many letters a particular patient might get? At $2.50 or more per letter, this is a huge money maker. Why should they be sending 5, 6, 7 or 8 or more letters to a single patient who has not come in? It's outrageous. And if they say they don't do that, ask to get it in writing. I guarantee they won't commit to that. I have no objection to a pharmacy sending a letter to a patient who has a pending refill. But it should be a basic letter written by the pharmacy without marketing messages written by PhRMA. And one letter should do, there is no reason for 8. And if CVS, Right-Aid and Adheris think that compliance and consistency is important then they should do it for all of their patients, not just the ones PhRMA is so interested in. California is the one state forcing everyone else to rethink some of these issues. It looks like the PhRMA money is lined up on the attack. I hope that principles prevail. Compliance programs are ok, but the tactics have gotten far too aggressive and invasive. This is sad and I hope that all the PhRMA and Adheris lobbying money doesn’t push this through. These tactics are pure aggressive and invasive marketing.

Here is a question for Adheris and its pharmacy and Phrma customers. If all these reminder letters are not marketing, what are they? Well the Adheris answer is that they are important for patient care, for helping patients stay compliant with their meds. So I interpret that to mean it’s not a marketing tactic, rather it’s part of the practice of good pharmacy.

But if that’s the case, then why is it that Adheris and its pharmacy customers are only willing to send reminder letters when they are getting paid to do it? If it’s just part of good pharmacy practice, why are they only sending them when they get paid?

And why does big phrma need to draft all the marketing text on the letters? The legislators in California better take a hard look at some of the tactics. Look at some sample letters for products like Lipitor, Plavix, Crestor, Lovenox, Singulair, Actos etc etc. Ask to see samples. The letters are all drafted by the phrma companies with all sorts of marketing spin.

And the tactics are very aggressive and invasive. Ask Adheris how many letters a particular patient might get? At $2.50 or more per letter, this is a huge money maker. Why should they be sending 5, 6, 7 or 8 or more letters to a single patient who has not come in? It’s outrageous. And if they say they don’t do that, ask to get it in writing. I guarantee they won’t commit to that.

I have no objection to a pharmacy sending a letter to a patient who has a pending refill. But it should be a basic letter written by the pharmacy without marketing messages written by PhRMA. And one letter should do, there is no reason for 8. And if CVS, Right-Aid and Adheris think that compliance and consistency is important then they should do it for all of their patients, not just the ones PhRMA is so interested in.

California is the one state forcing everyone else to rethink some of these issues. It looks like the PhRMA money is lined up on the attack. I hope that principles prevail. Compliance programs are ok, but the tactics have gotten far too aggressive and invasive.

]]>