Connecticut Bill To Limit Gifts To Docs Dies Quietly
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 6th, 2010 // 12:59 pm
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.”
Justice in MI
Hi Ed–Can you explain further why the bill died? It appears to have gotten a majority in the CT legislature. Or was this simply a committee? Thanks.
Justice in MI
Ah, I now see that this was just a committee. And so I assume it was never introduced on the floor?
Dan
Interesting you posted the two most powerful influncers of prescribing habits recently, Ed. Sampling is first, and I proved this myself with a smaller pharmaceutical company some time ago. Number two is prescriber gifting. of course, health care should strive for objectivity in such decisions- restoring the health of another, and not Pavlovian incentives to ensure the profits of drugmakers.
HoldMyMayo
Great that one of the bill’s opponents was the manager of “a New York-style deli,” quoted as follows:
“Often, lunch time is the only opportunity for sales representatives to present new products or procedures to a busy health care office.”
I’ll eat to that.
Ed Silverman
Hi Justice,
After speaking with Jonathan Harris and some others, it appears the simple majority didn’t ensure passage. Legislative maneuvers could have held up vote and distracted legislators from other bills as the legislative session neared its end for the year.
So Harris took what sounded to me as a Solomon-like approach and at the last minute, tacked on language about adopting the existing codes from the trade groups onto another bill. In doing so, he believes he managed to strike a compromise.
Consequently, the original bill died, although in his view, some of its intent managed to live on, assuming the governor signs the bill. In this respect, he is correct - it didn’t turn out to be an all-or-nothing situation. At this point, though, one would have to compare the original bill with the trade group codes to determine the extent to which there are differences.
Hope this helps,
ed
pharmavet
Companies like Pfizer have major presence in CT. Joe Lieberman gets mucho dinero from them. Not a stretch to see this as a general proposition with other CT politicos, and hence why the bill died.
Maggie
Memo to those in Conn who don’t want to be outed on public disclosure… by law,as convicted felons, Pfizer,Cephalon,and soon to be several other companies are required to publish and disclose all gifts of any value(even a cup of coffee). Most of these folks won’t find out until they see their own name in the paper or web site. It’s time MD’s started acting professional and say no to graft!! What a dirty industry!! The funny part is these companies have not even told their customers that these, lunches and goodies will be reported starting from 1/1/10. looking forward to finding out who is taking the dough from big pharma.
Justice in MI
Much thanks, Ed! Interesting sausage! (Not intended as a reference either to the deli or the pig virus…).