Bill Targets Data Collection

By Sean Whaley

By SEAN WHALEY

REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY – Sen. Joe Heck told a legislative committee Wednesday that it was time for the pharmaceutical industry to follow existing state law and not collect data about individual doctor drug prescribing habits for marketing purposes.

Senate Bill 231 would make it clear that pharmacy information about the drugs doctors prescribe to their patients is not public information and cannot be released except to specified officials, primarily in law enforcement.

Heck, R-Henderson, a physician, said the decision to make pharmaceutical records of physicians private was made by the Nevada Legislature decades ago. But the practice of pharmacies providing information about doctor prescribing habits has been going on despite the law, he said.

It has always been clear that patient drug information is private, Heck said. But a recent legal opinion sought from legislative counsel makes it clear that the original law, passed in 1967, applied to physician prescribing information as well, he told the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee.

“It is blatantly not being followed,” Heck said of the existing prohibition.

It is up to the state Pharmacy Board to enforce the law and ban any release of the information.

Heck’s bill would relax the prohibition slightly, allowing the release of aggregate data, such as the number of prescriptions of a drug issued in a particular ZIP code.

Heck said he requested the bill in August to close a loophole discovered during the prescription drug debate in the 2005 session.

Those opposed to the bill say the collection of the data serves a public good, but Heck said not one example of this public good had been brought to his attention over the past seven months.

Barry Gold, director of government relations and advocacy for AARP, testified in support of the bill, saying the doctor data could be used by drug companies to reward their salespeople.

“Think about that,” he said. “Drug marketers are being rewarded for what your doctor prescribes. There is something that is just inherently wrong about that.”

But representatives of pharmaceutical data collection companies who oppose the bill said the gathering of physician prescribing information serves a valuable public purpose.

Carol Livingston, vice president of account management services for Wolters Kluwer Health, a company that collects physician prescribing data, said one beneficial use of the information is the provision of free samples of drugs that doctors can give to patients who might not otherwise be able to afford them.

“We do not apologize for the commercial aspect of our business,” she said. “However, it is important to understand that without the commercial side of this business, the availability of the comprehensive information used for public good and safety benefits would not exist. This bill could deny physicians updated information on cutting-edge specialized use of treatments.”

Robert Hunkler, director of professional relations for IMS Health, another data collection company, said the company has sued in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, challenging a similar law prohibiting access to the doctor drug prescribing information. A ruling in the case is expected in the next few weeks, and he urged Nevada lawmakers not to act on the legislation until a decision is made.

But Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, said Nevada law as it now stands prohibits the release of this information.

The legislative legal opinion is the “800-pound gorilla” in the room and will be considered to be the law in Nevada until found otherwise, he said.

Randolph Frankel, vice president of public affairs and government relations for IMS Health, offered as an example of a public benefit the withdrawal of the medicine Tysabri, used to treat multiple sclerosis. The high-risk drug was brought back at the request of patients, he said. Data about individual doctors who prescribed the drug was used to identify how to distribute the drug and to monitor its use for safety, Frankel said.

The American Medical Association, in a letter to the committee, also opposed Heck’s bill because there are benefits to gaining access to the information. Physicians are allowed to “opt out” of having their information used, Michael Maves, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the AMA, said in the letter.

But Heck discounted the claims of the companies and the AMA. He asked how the physician prescription data can be used to track adverse reactions in patients, as was claimed in testimony, without knowing to whom the medication was prescribed.

Heck challenged many of the statements of the company representatives, saying that with every comment, they were “digging a deeper hole.”

The bill was referred to a subcommittee so that industry representatives could offer information on how the data collection is helpful to patients.

Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, said she wanted to know how the existing Nevada statute was being broken to allow the data collection.

Larry Pinson, executive secretary of the state Pharmacy Board, was not present for the committee discussion on Heck’s bill. But a quick review of the law in question shows that pharmacists are prohibited from divulging such information, he said.

It is possible that others who have access to such information, such as insurance companies or pharmacy chains, are actually providing the data to the data collection companies, Pinson said in an interview after the hearing.

(c) 2007 Las Vegas Review – Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.