Philadelphia Physician Outlines Unintended Consequences of the Proposed Pharmaceutical “Gift” Ban
Yesterday we covered an update on the legislation Philadelphia City Councilman Bill Greenlee introduced that would ban gifts from pharmaceutical manufacturers to doctors. The legislation’s next hearing is today at the Philadelphia City Council’s meeting. The bill requires pharmaceutical manufacturers’ representatives register with the Health Department and display an identification badge when they engage in sales, marketing, or promotion of any kind on behalf of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Editorial
An excellent editorial was published that should inform the City Council’s thinking tonight. Written by Brad C. Klein, MD, MBA, the piece notes the negative impact this legislation will have on physician education and ultimately patient access. Dr. Klein is a clinical neurologist and chief operating officer at Abington Neurological Associates, Ltd. He is also the Vice Chair of the American Academy of Neurology’s (AAN) Medical Economics and Management Committee, although this editorial represents Dr. Klein’s own views and he is not speaking on behalf of the AAN, one of the nation’s leading physician specialty organizations.
Dr. Klein’s editorial starts with what we have already published:
“On Nov. 30, the Council of the City of Philadelphia moved a proposed ordinance out of committee that could drastically reduce learning opportunities for physicians and other health-care providers in Philadelphia and require manufacturers to submit any product marketing materials to the city for review, even though the data has been reviewed by the FDA.”
The negatives of the legislation are substantial:
“For those suffering from any illness, this ordinance, given its breadth, could potentially limit access to essential — if not life-saving — medications. Over-regulating all pharmaceutical relationships with physicians can hurt the opportunity for providers to learn about new and important treatments they can offer their patients, including non-opioid pain medications.
From a practical standpoint, the bill is vague and runs the risk of creating additional administrative burdens that offset the positive outcomes it aims to create. The definition of health-care practitioners and health-care providers in the ordinance is broad and could be read to suggest everyone working in the medical profession needs to register with the city.”
It does not stop there:
“In addition, the ordinance does not specify what medical authority will review the material submitted, nor does it estimate the costs of such an ongoing review of extensive literature. Pharmaceutical manufacturing is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. Alleged deceptive marketing or sales practices from a small minority of rogue elements in the profession fall under the watchful eye of the FDA. The taxpayer funds spent by Philadelphia for this added level of scrutiny and administrative burden is unnecessary and could be costly.”
For members of the Philadelphia City Council, there are alternatives to consider:
“There are better options the city of Philadelphia can provide to help patients, rather than these broad regulations. First, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is already working aggressively on the problem of opioids and informing people about existing programs, such as the prevention campaign at www.pastop.org. Second, resources can be allocated to help patients receive more comprehensive services to support non-opioid pain control methods. Lastly, resources can be allocated to help physicians learn about non-opioid medications that can also provide pain relief.”
Dr. Klein’s conclusion says it all:
“Bottom line: While there are good intentions behind the ordinance, the unintended consequences are significant. Adding more red tape to the entire medical community for all treatments, particularly non-opioid treatments, is neither efficient nor necessary to continue to address the very real opioid addiction challenges our city, county, and country face.”