As reported in the NY Times Blog yesterday, the State of Vermont, which already had fairly strict provider financial arrangement reporting requirements for pharmaceutical companies doing business in the state, is slated to significantly limit gifts to providers by both pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The new law, which, according to the NYT blog, will be signed by the governor, will prohibit all but certain enumerated gifts, revise reporting requirements by pharmaceutical companies and expand the reporting requirements to medical device manufactures.
The legislative bodies findings and intent, obviously influenced by the reporting thus far provided under the previous version of the law, outline its concerns, stating its belief that marketing practices can influence the rise in health care spending and that “state of Vermont has a substantial interest in cost containment and the protection of public health.” The legislature cites a number of findings leading to its adoption of the legislation: (i) an IOM study linking gifts to prescribing behavior, (ii) recent federal crackdowns on medical device manufacturers’ alleged antikickback violations (see my related post on the federal Sunshine Act), (iii) significant spending in the relatively small state of Vermont on pharma marketing (“[i]n fiscal year 2008, pharmaceutical manufacturers reported spending $2,935,248.00 in Vermont on fees, travel expenses, and other direct payments to Vermont physicians, hospitals, universities, and others”), (iv) the pharma industry’s focus on 100 physician opinion leaders for almost two-thirds of pharma’s spend (“approximately $2.1 million in payments went to physicians…[with the] top 100 individual recipients received nearly $1,770,000.00 in fiscal year 2008”) and prevalence of pharma’s spend throughout Vermont’s 4,573 licensed health care professionals, with 2,280 being recipients. Based upon the legislation, the Vermont lawmakers certainly are frowning on the nearly $1M spent on food, noting that many food recipients received $1,000 or more spent on them. One individual recipient, in fact, apparently receive over $15,000 in food.
The legislature concludes that the “act is necessary to increase transparency for consumers by requiring disclosure of allowable expenditures and gifts to health care providers and facilities providing health care [in order] to reduce real or perceived conflicts of interest which undermine patient confidence in health care providers and increase health care costs by influencing prescribing patterns. Limitations on gifts and increased transparency are expected to save money for consumers, businesses, and the state by reducing the promotion of expensive prescription drugs, biological products, and medical devices, and to protect public health by reducing sales-oriented information to prescribers.”
The new law prohibits “any manufacturer of a prescribed product or any wholesale distributor of medical devices, or any agent thereof, to offer or give any gift to a health care provider.” It provides that the attorney general “may bring an action in Washington superior court for injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees and may impose on a manufacturer that violates this section a civil penalty of no more than $10,000.00 per violation. Each unlawful gift shall constitute a separate violation.”
Permitted items that are not deemed prohibited gifts include: (i) samples, (ii) limited short term evaluation use loaners of medical devices not exceeding 90 days, (iii) reasonable quantities of medical device demonstration or evaluation units to a health care provider to assess the appropriate use and function of the product, (iv) provision, distribution, dissemination, or receipt of peer-reviewed academic, scientific, or clinical articles or journals and other items that serve a genuine educational function, (v) scholarship or other support for medical students, residents, and fellows to attend a significant educational, scientific, or policy-making conference or seminar of a national, regional, or specialty medical or other professional association if the recipient of the scholarship or other support is selected by the association, (vi) rebates and discounts for prescribed products provided in the normal course of business. Certain items are not prohibited and are considered “allowable expenditures.” These include (i) certain limited sponsorship of a significant educational, medical, scientific, or policy-making conference or seminar, (ii) certain limited honoraria and payment of the expenses of a health care professional who serves on the faculty at a bona fide significant educational, medical, scientific, or policy-making conference or seminar, (iii) bona fide clinical trial arrangements, (vi) certain limited bona fide research projects, (v) expenses relating to technical training of individual health care professionals on the use of a medical device pursuant to a written agreement.
Manufactuers need to report “any allowable expenditure or gift … to any health care provider” or “to an academic institution or to a professional, educational, or patient organization representing or serving health care providers or consumers” in the following categories:
- “The loan of a medical device for a short-term trial period, not to exceed 90 days, to permit evaluation of a medical device by a health care provider or patient.”
- “The provision of reasonable quantities of medical device demonstration or evaluation units to a health care provider to assess the appropriate use and function of the product and determine whether and when to use or recommend the product in the future.”
- “The provision, distribution, dissemination, or receipt of peer-reviewed academic, scientific, or clinical articles or journals and other items that serve a genuine educational function provided to a health care provider for the benefit of patients.”
- “Scholarship or other support for medical students, residents, and fellows to attend a significant educational, scientific, or policy-making conference or seminar of a national, regional, or specialty medical or other professional association if the recipient of the scholarship or other support is selected by the association.”
- “Labels approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for prescribed products.”
Manufacturers must report, on form specified by the attorney general, the value, nature, and purpose of each allowable expenditure, and permitted gift along with (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the recipient’s address, (iii) the recipient’s institutional affiliation, (iv) prescribed product or products being marketed, if any; and (v) the recipient’s state board number.
Failure to manufacturer of prescribed products that fails to disclose as required by the law subjects the manufacturer to a civil penalty of no more than $10,000.00 per violation. Each unlawful failure to disclose, however, constitutes a separate violation.
The legislation also directs the attorney general’s office to conduct a review, in consultation with the commission on health care reform, of the advisability of modifying the law to require the disclosure of information about the provision of pharmaceutical samples to health care providers. At present, samples are expressly excluded from the reporting regime.
If signed into law, the law will take effect July 1, 2009, but reporting activities under new regime will be implemented in 2010 reporting period.
Clearly the legislature had cost on its mind in enacting the law, as it also has tasked a state workgroup to explore generic alternative formularie recommendationss. The workgroup is to report to the legislature by January 15, 2010 on the list generated.
Filed under: AKS, Conflicts of Interest, Health Law, AKS, CMP, Conflicts of Interest, LinkedIn, Pharma