Earlier this week, the Washington DC City Council became the first jurisdiction in the nation to pass legislation requiring sales reps to be licensed. The proprosal caused a stir for months as critics, including PhRMA, denounced the bill as an unnecessary and intrusive 'solution in search of a problem.' But councilman David Catania, who has repeatedly taken on pharma, argues the bill - which two more hurdles before becoming law - may inject accountability into the system. We chatted briefly with him a short while ago. This is an excerpt...
Pharmalot: Why did you pursue such a bill? What's the point? Catania: I've had other big pharma bills. One was about transparency for pharmacy benefit managers and another, which wasn't successful, about excessive pricing. But I've also been concerned with safety and I feel the federal government is asleep at the wheel. There's an onslaught of marketing and DDMAC (the FDA division that monitors promotional activities) sends letters and they're sometimes ignored. Or there's a slap. All I'm trying to accomplish is to give citizens a fair chance when it comes to the kind of information that is disseminated. This is one way.
Pharmalot: I've read each rep will have to pay $2,500 for a license and have at least a college degree. How'd you come up with that. Catania: No, the $2,500 figure is wrong. It's absolutely ridiculous. Physicians only pay $500 for a license and it will have to be decided by the Board of Pharmacy. And we never insisted on a college degree, only a certificate from an institution of higher learning. That also has to be worked out.
Pharmalot: Procedural matters aside, how is this supposed to work in the real world? Catania: Right now, if a physician or prescriber feels a sales rep has been offering false or misleading information or efforts, nothing may be said. But going forward, the physician will have a place to go. They can't go to DDMAC. And so our Board of Pharmacy is going to be charged with creating a code of conduct and enforcing regulations...There'll be the usual process where the board determines those things, public hearings, for instance. And pharma can be part of that process should they wish to comment.
Pharmalot: Sales reps are under a lot of pressure to make numbers. If they don't make them, they can be gone. And some docs may not be too concerned with what they hear, anyway. How do you address that? Catania: I'm not saying the bill is perfect. We have a big task ahead of us and industry will do everything it can to make sure we're not successful. But there is a breach between ethics and practice, and we're trying to close that breach. We're just trying to move the ship in the direction of greater transparency and a less paternalistic system....
...One thing to remember is that we're on the corner of Main Street and Main Street - much of the country pays attention to what happens here. And with industry exerting so much influence on the federal government, the states are increasingly left to their own devices. So this may start a trend with states pursuing similar legislation.
Pharmalot: You expect the mayor will sign this? Catania: Yes, we - the council - received two letters of support. From there, Congress has to approve, but I don't anticipate a problem. So I would expect the bill to become law within three to six months. And then the test begins.
9 Comments
I pay about $250 for my pharmacy liscense. I would imagine industry would need to pay this fee for existing reps.
Same old libtard sillyness. If only the DC government was as concerned about their own employees; see: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=4038609
This must be a stopgap measure to replace reduced parking fines for DC; its about time DC got their fair share of the big pharma money- who's next into the lunch box.
I would guess the number of reps in pharma without a college degree is nearly zero at this point in time.
What an outrageous suggestion- physicians don't have anywhere to go to report off-label detailing; I guess the FDA, OIG, CMS, State Professional Boards, and State Attorney's General investigations were channeled the spirit world.
No one mentioned the preemption clause.
I hope that Mr. Catania and the D.C. Council start a trend that will clean up a dirty industry, one that ends up killing and maiming for profit. States should step forward with this and other measures, as the federal agency that is to protect our public health, has been bought by the industry.
Let's also not forget that your doctor prescribing you the meds that are newest on the market but not that much better than the "older" alternatives is somewhat responsible as well.
I appreciate that my doc has a "no reps" policy, but frequently attends educational activities and appears to read up on current trends and new medicines.
The notion that 800,000 licensed professionals, all who have sworn an oath in their state, and the benficiaries of 20 years of our educational system can be bought off by a couple of cute 24 year old kids fresh out of college with a marketing degree and a handful of drug pens is absurd. If, on the other hand, that is true, then someone should be gravely concerned about the practitioners, not the reps.
No one would suggest that the Industry didn't go to far in their past promotional frenzy, but this is not the Last Temptation of Christ, this is schmoozing for business, and its so obvious and out in the open that its hard to believe that physicians would be dupped into harming any of the patients they have sworn to help over social trivialities.
Far more dangerous to healthcare is an "entreprenurial" physician on a milk route of a speaking tour distorting safety data and making recommendations to use products- this is physicians talking to physicians, peer to peer- a busy doctor just might listen to that, but to think that a rep will have the same influence is just wrong.
[...] SafeRx Act passed a second city council vote to become law in the District of Columbia this week. The law, which would license pharmaceutical representatives and impose penalties for misleading remarks made in sales pitches to doctors, is the first of its kind in the U.S. It was shepherded through by Councilmember David Catania (I - at-large), who also serves as the president of the National Legislative Association to Reduce Drug Prices.  Read more about it in the Washington Business Journal, (buried in) the Washington Post, and an interview with Catania at Pharmalot. [...]
I see a few overpaid, immoral people whining here, afraid they won´´t make their numbers with the docs. These ex-cheerleaders should have a meeting with some of the families whose family members, mainly children, have been killed by typical culprits such as those in the psychotropic family. One reason I like the group of young doctors pledging not to see reps or put up their junk in their offices is that they will do their own homework and search for real risk-benefit instead of listening to the load of ---- doled out by drug reps. I hope their number grows.
Joan
You are fairly unreasonable. Who will you allow to tell doctors about FDA approved medicines that helps most folks and harms few..
Doctors over see the death of many folks over their career. Does that mean they should not treat the rest? What does a doctor do for a patient besides give them a pill or perform surgery? "First do no harm" means someone drops dead alone. Is this also immoral?. You should not be calling anyone who is genuinely trying to help “immoral†unless you are exhibiting a higher morality.... and that doesn't mean watching them die with a clear conscience.