Some of our readers may already be aware of the “physician gift ban” legislation introduced in the Illinois State House by Representative Michelle Mussman. The legislation is intended to prohibit a pharmaceutical marketer from providing any promotions, including travel and prizes, to a physician to induce the physician to prescribe Tier 1 medications.
Initial Introduction
During the initial introduction of the legislation, it was simply worded that a “pharmaceutical marketer may not provide a physician with any promotions, including, but not limited to, paid travel and prizes, to induce the physician to prescribe Tier 1 medications.”
First Amendment
A little over a month after the initial introduction of the legislation and its assignment to the Prescription Drug Affordability and Accessibility Committee, Representative Mussman filed House Committee Amendment No. 1, which was then referred to the Rules Committee and subsequently referred to the Prescription Drug Affordability & Accessibility Committee.
In the first amendment, Mussman changed the language to include a definition of “gift” and “promotion.” A gift was defined to include “any item or other thing of value that is given without receiving equal or greater value in return,” while a promotion was defined as “a gift that is given to induce the physician to prescribe a medication.”
The promotion definition then outlines specific examples of what will not be considered a promotion, including non-cash items of minimal value that will directly benefit the physician’s patients; funding provided to academic institutions and residence and fellowship programs to support the participation of medical nursing, physician assistant, and pharmacy students, residents, and fellows in professional meetings, including educational meetings, as long as the program identifies such funding recipients based on independent institutional criteria and the funds are distributed to recipients without specific attribution to sponsors; reasonable honoraria to a physician and payment of the reasonable expenses of a physician at a professional or educational conference or meeting; or any other item or thing of value that is consistent with the current federal Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and the current PhRMA Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals.
The amendment also includes the penalty that violations of the Act would receive: a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each violation.
Second Amendment
One day after introducing the first amendment, Mussman introduced the second amendment, which is identical to the first, with the exception of the violation provision – the second amendment excludes any mention of punishments for violations.
Hearing on the Legislation
The legislation is expected to be discussed during the Prescription Drug Affordability & Accessibility Committee Hearing scheduled for March 27, 2019, at 10:00 am, though it currently looks as though the discussion will center around the first amendment of the legislation, not the second amendment. The language in the second amendment still remains in the House Rules Committee and has not been referred out to the Prescription Drug Affordability & Accessibility Committee.
It is interesting that this legislation began as a bill to ban everything under the initial language, but through revisions has fallen more in line with restricting those items not allowed by the HHS OIG guidance and the PhRMA guidance. Readers who are interested in watching the discussion of the Prescription Drug Affordability & Accessibility Committee on March 27, 2019, may be able to do so here.