An amendment to the Senate health care bill would effectively ban data mining which, as you know, involves the practice of buying prescription records to target sales pitches to doctors, theAssociated Press reports. Democrats Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois say their measure will combat "harassing sales practices" and "restrain undue influence" of sales reps.
The move comes amid tremendous controversy over data mining. Vermont, for instance, passed a law restricting the sale of prescription drug info that identifies prescribers and patients for commercial marketing purposes. The effort is being challenged by IMS Health, Wolters Kluwer Health and SDI, with support from PhRMA, which contend the law hurts public access to healthcare info (back story). Last week, the New Jersey attorney general proposed restrictions on data mining (see here). New Hampshire already has restrictions, while a bill in Maine was struck down in court.
In any event, whether the Senate measure can make it into law is highly uncertain. As the AP notes, the House already passed its health reform bill, which opted to study the issue of data mining, not limit it. An IMS spokesman tells the AP that interfering with data mining "has the potential to harm patients," since the info is used by federal agencies to track patient safety. The Senate amendment, though, only bars the sale of prescribing records "for marketing purposes."
Consumer advocates say the Senate effort could raise the profile of data mining in Congress and among state lawmakers. "I think both at both federal and state levels you'll see continued momentum because it's clear the issue of drug marketing influence hasn't been addressed yet," Marcia Hams, director of prescription access at Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health care advocate, tells the AP.
15 Comments
As a drup rep I favor a ban on data mining. We need to move away from sales and towards a fair balance product represention.
I also do agree, there should be a strict ban on data mining. Its a very good post, very informative.
IMS can still use the info for public health needs, selling to PhRMA for targeting their ever more aggressive sales and marketing efforts does not help public health, it just disproportionately targets high prescribing providers with their sizeable budgets for influence.
This is a great move toward reestablishing sanity in medicine and marketing, and removing some of the egregious acts--and arguments--of those with the deepest pockets.
Beware of unintended consequences. Physician targeting with IMS data helps minimize inefficiency and lowers SG&A expenses for Pharma. More and more, doctors have lost their financial inducements from the drug companies to prescribe their products, and, despite cynicism to the contrary, may actually be high prescribers because they like the way the drugs are working for their patients. I understand how SG&A expenses contribute to the balance sheet. They will rise significantly if data mining is outlawed, resulting in further drug price increases. And no, I am not a flak for Big Pharma. I consult in a completely different area.
Does anyone know the amendment number or where I can find the written text of this amendment? Thank you
@ Pharmavet -- I guess pharma is the only industry where increased SG&A expenses equal price increases. How about a more competitive marketplace/companies where firms will have to become more efficient and find ways to absorb higher SG&A costs without raising prices? It happens in hundreds of market segments. But I guess that’s blasphemy if applied to pharma/devices. Of course IMS and PhRMA oppose the idea – it hurts profits and requires them to remodel their biz practices. Don’t for a minute tell me with a straight face it will hurt public health or is a justifiable reason for increased prices. That’s patently ridiculous.
Confucius, last time I checked, we don't have price controls in this country, so why should a profit making company with obligations to its shareholder be forced to absorb higher costs that would be the result of outlawing data mining. If my COGS go up as a result of legally mandated inefficiencies, I have every right to pass those costs along to the customer. Every industry does this, not just Pharma. Why do you think that business are not hiring? It's due to the threat of new laws that increase regulation,promote inefficiency and increase the COGS. Your name suggest that you come from a Communist country, where indeed my company would have to remodel its biz practices to absorb the costs of increased regulation.
I'm more in favor of a partial block like the current "opt out" option. "Opting out" means the information is still gathered by IMS and NDC, but limits what drug companies and reps can know about physicians' specific prescribing habits.
Since it is not a complete block of information, SG&A expenses can still be managed efficiently because drug companies can still identify the doctors who are of high value.
A doctor who does not prescribe many cholesterol medicine will not be targeted to receive a lot, if any, sales calls and samples from the cardiovascular reps.
Conversely, a doctor who prescribes tons of cholesterol meds will be highly valued. No one will know exactly what products he writes, just that he writes a lot prescriptions in that class and it's worth the effort to try to get a piece of that action.
The key here will be for the rep to develop a sound relationship with the doctor so that he will give honest feedback regarding the product--and that my friends is a whole other issue in itself.
Beautiful.... block the electronic data mining and things will go back to the way they were in the "olden days".
Maybe the SKF rep won't come in with a 1 lb box of Russell Stovers mint cremes in exchange for rifling through the stack of paper Rx's as often was the case in 1972..... but surely the folks at some large chain (which doesn't own a PBM) will figure a method to bypass IMS and offer educational materials or some other "unique program" in exchange for lower COGS.
Pharmavet - Good Grief! Pharma enjoys one of the highest profit margins of any industry in the world. Does pharma do good? Yes, but there is so much fat in their marketing and sales efforts, that your argument falls apart. IMS mining actually hurts overall patient care (if you actually believe that pharma reps educate providers and that translates into better patient care). By disroportionately investing the corporations "educational efforts", a huge percentage of smaller volume prescribers do not get the "information" and samples for their patients.
So, yes if you go to a busy practice, large volume prescribing doctor, you get the "latest info", but if you go to a smaller volume MD, that may try outdated methods such as diet and exercise first before putting every patient on a magic pill, you are short changed.
Of course this is true IF, you actually believe that pharma co reps are not just trying to make a bigger bonus.
"...data mining which, as you know, involves the practice of buying prescription records to target sales pitches to doctors, ..."
This is incorrect. "Data mining" is a sophisticated, rigorous process of statistical analysis. What you are talking about is simple purchasing of personal data.
What I wonder is why there is no mention of the data mining managed care companies use for physician "report cards" in order to incentivise the docs to write the way THEY want them to write. How is this any different than Pharma? ...except for the fact that its legal for mangaged care to give nice checks out for "good behavior".
Betterliving raises a great point. Insurance companies mine their own databases for outcomes and trends that ultimately determine risk stratification and premiums for subscribers, drug efficacy, patient visits, copays and everything else that you can imagine. They write their own software, and would be totally immune to outlawing of commercial data mining, such as IMS. This sort of data mining is far more extensive and consequential viz. healthcare costs than what Pharma does through IMS. So if you want to go for the big fish viz. data mining, go after the big insurers. However, you won't be successful, legally speaking, because you would have to go to court to invalidate the extensive patents they hold on their proprietary software.
Insurance companies and pharmacies benefit managers are going to impose comparative effectiveness even if PhRMA keeps watering it down in Congress. How? Analytics leading to coverage changes and even labeling changes -- Medco is planning on doing their own genomic trials to discover if only certain people benefit from Plavix. It doesn't matter how many high prescribers and data you have, if there is a formulary reason that a managed care maker can decide that the drug works only in an identifiable subgroup- well that market just got smaller. I'm sure we will see Medicare follow suit.
On the plus side, if you had a test and knew a drug worked for sure specifically for you and your situation, that is better for the American consumer. Maybe it will move pharma from marketing to education.