KOHL, DURBIN ASK AMA FOR DETAILS ON HOW DRUG INDUSTRY IS BLOCKED FROM ACCESSING PHYSICIANS' PRESCRIBING DATA
WASHINGTON
- U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) today sent a letter to the American Medical Association (AMA) asking for detailed information about how the
Prescribing Data Restriction Program (PDRP) blocks the drug industry from accessing physicians' prescribing data. The Senators specifically asked if the PDRP blocks only drug industry sales representatives, and what the rationale is for not requiring doctors to choose to have their prescribing data made available to the drug industry instead of requiring them to opt out. They also asked what enforcement mechanisms the AMA has to ensure that the drug industry abides by physician requests to block access to their prescribing data.
Today's letter follows up on correspondence between the Senators and AMA that took place in April and addresses concerns that pharmaceutical companies develop profiles of individual physicians' prescribing information as part of their marketing efforts. Drug companies and others purchase physician information from the AMA that enables them to match prescribing data to specific physicians.
Durbin and Kohl plan to introduce a bill this spring to create a federal academic detailing program, which would provide physicians and other prescribers with an objective source of unbiased information on all prescription drugs, based on sound scientific research. The proposed legislation would create a grant program to fund the production of educational materials for doctors on the safety, effectiveness, and cost of prescription drugs, including generic and over-the-counter alternatives. The policy would also create a second grant program to dispatch trained medical professionals (such as pharmacists, nurses, and other health care professionals) into physicians' offices to distribute the extensively researched and independent information. Because academic detailing lowers healthcare costs for the government, the bill is expected to pay for itself.
[Text of letter attached]
Michael Maves, MD, MBA
Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer
American Medical Association
515 North State Street
Chicago
, IL 60610
Dear Dr. Maves:
We appreciate your responses to our questions concerning the AMA's Physician Data Restriction Program (PDRP). As you noted, the AMA plays an important role in physicians' efforts to control use of their individual prescribing data.
We are pleased to learn that the PDRP was changed last year so that physicians no longer need to renew after three years their request to block drug industry sales representatives from accessing their individual prescribing data. This change is a notable improvement over the previous practice.
There are additional questions, however, that we believe merit a follow-up letter. First, your letter stated that the PDRP enables physicians to block pharmaceutical employees who have "direct contact with physicians" from gaining access to their prescribing data. Does the PDRP also block access to pharmaceutical employees involved in marketing who do not have direct contact with physicians but would be in the position of using a physician's prescribing data to develop a physician profile or formulate marketing strategies involving a physician?
Second, your letter notes that the AMA has promoted the PDRP in more than 70 medical journals and periodicals. But despite these and other efforts to publicize the PDRP, only a small percentage of physicians have chosen to participate in it and, as you noted, only between 26 and 31 percent of physicians were even aware of the program in 2007. Given the challenges of publicizing the availability of the PDRP, wouldn't it be more effective to have physicians choose to have their prescribing data made available to drug industry sales representatives instead of having to opt out?
Third, your letter notes that physicians have the opportunity to register a complaint if they believe their prescribing data has been used inappropriately and that the AMA will investigate such a complaint. But doesn't this enforcement mechanism limit action only to situations where a drug industry sales representative tells a physician that he or she has prescribing data that he or she is not supposed to have? Might that be a reason why the AMA has received only one complaint? Has the AMA explored other enforcement mechanisms? We would be interested in receiving more information on the AMA's enforcement of the PDRP, including identifying the "appropriate action" the AMA will take when there is a violation of the PDRP and its current standard for determining whether a violation will lead to the termination of a drug company's or health information organization's access to the AMA database.
Thank you for your prompt response to our initial letter. We look forward to your response to our additional questions. Feel free to contact Brian Hickey (224-2152) of Senator Durbin's staff or Nicole Brown (224-0101) of Senator Kohl's staff with any questions you may have concerning this request.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin Herb Kohl
Assistant Majority Leader Chairman
Special Committee on Aging
