We have written several times about the physician “gift” ban that was proposed last year by Philadelphia City Councilman Bill Greenlee. As a refresher, the proposal would essentially outlaw all dinner meetings and other pharmaceutical sponsored events in the city of Philadelphia, in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers’ representatives register with the Health Department and display an ID badge when promoting any products, and banning all gifts to healthcare providers, their offices and staff.
The bill was then amended to exempt registration for pharmaceutical representatives whose activities are conducted solely within the location of a healthcare or life sciences convention, but maintained the meal ban and almost all other portions of the proposal.
On December 13, 2018, the Philadelphia City Council held a meeting, where the second reading of the bill was to be held. However, Councilman Greenlee and Councilwoman Cindy Bass announced that the proposal was being pulled before a vote could be taken. According to Greenlee, industry was “bullying” local businesses by threatening “to pull any future medical conventions from the city because of the ‘perception’ of the legislation.”
Public Comments
During public comments at the December 13th meeting, the “bullying” Greenlee referred to in his tweet seemed to be less actual bullying and more concerns for the business environment in the city. As one speaker noted, the City already has $1.2 billion booked in life science business – including the Convention Center and hotels. Losing that business will likely equate to losing jobs – and not executive jobs, but hourly employees. A speaker who works with Maggiano’s Little Italy echoed those sentiments, noting that enactment of the bill as drafted would result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue for the restaurant, an impact likely to be felt by innocent hourly workers.
There were also several Philadelphia residents who spoke at the meeting in support of the bill, most of whom had their lives personally affected by an opioid overdose. Many of them praised the Council and asked that they maintain their focus on the opioid crisis.
Council Discussion
Upon being recognized by the Chair, Councilman Greenlee began to speak about what he considers “semi-hysteria, sometimes without the semi” and “misinformation, a/k/a lies [and] bullying” surrounding the bill. He noted that the bill is “not designed to solve the drug problem in the City of Philadelphia” as that is a “multi-pronged problem” that will require “multi-pronged solutions.”
He went on to say though, at that the same time, the bill is bigger than the opioid crisis and is an attempt at getting “ahead of the addiction problem.” He cited that as the reason behind his declination to limit the bills to opioid products. He closed by asking that the bill be held on the Second Reading Passage for the next meeting.
Following Councilman Greenlee, the other co-sponsor of the bill, Councilwoman Bass, spoke. She came out against the pharmaceutical industry, stating that they had seemed to want to participate and had requested delays previously, only to disappear and not participate until the end of November, when they essentially re-wrote the proposal and gutted most of what the Council had put together. Bass noted that “when the pharmaceutical industry is truly ready to put some skin in the game, we’ll be there to talk further, because we know that this is not the end of the conversation.”
Philadelphia City Council President Clarke echoed frustrations with industry, noting, “I understand that there is a commitment for the record in public made by members of the pharma industry to work with the sponsors and all the members of Council and the Administration to come to some conclusion, because if not, I can say personally I will be voting aye next time around on the bill.”
Will it Be Back?
While the bill was pulled in December, a spokeswoman for Councilman Greenlee said they expect to have the measure taken up in the new session, beginning later this month on January 24th. While she did not say the proposed bill would be amended in any way, she did confirm Councilman Greenlee is talking to all parties. Whether “all parties” includes the pharmaceutical industry remains to be seen. This is shaping up to be an interesting proposal, with multiple interests speaking out on both sides of the issue.