Prohibits the sale of information listed on prescriptions that identifies specific patients or persons legally authorized to issue a prescription

Summary of provisions

Section 1: Establishes the legislative findings and intent.

Section 2: Amends Section 270 of the public health law by adding two new subdivisions defining the terms "individual identifying information" and "marketing."

Section 3: Amends the public health law by adding a new section 276-b prohibiting the sale of physician identified prescription records when such records will be used to market prescription drugs to doctors and other medical personnel who write prescriptions; provides exemptions. This section also provides the Commissioner of Health and the Attorney General with the authority to enforce compliance.

Section 4: Amends Subdivision 1 of section 79 of part C of chapter 58 of the laws of 2005, amending the public health law and other laws relating to implementing the state fiscal plan for the 2005-2006 fiscal year to repeal the June 15, 2012 expiration of section 270 of the public health law.

Section 5: Sets the effective date.

Justification

Spending on prescription drugs is one of the fastest growing components of health care expenditures in the United States. Although there are many reasons, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis credits the increase to: the number of prescriptions, the change to newer and higher priced drugs, price increases by manufacturers, and direct-to-consumer advertising as main factors in the rising cost of prescription drugs. In 2003, the average price of a retail prescription in New York was $63.34, ten dollars more than the average U.S. cost of a retail prescription. In addition, from June 2003 to June 2004, prices for brand-name prescription drugs used most commonly by older Americans rose 7.6 percent. This increase was 3.5 times the rate of inflation. A review of corporate annual reports in 2003 found that out of every $100 spent by pharmaceutical companies, $31 goes to marketing, advertising, and administrative costs, while only $13 goes to research and

development. According to a Journal of the American Medical Association article most of this marketing money, an estimated $19.1 billion in 2001, is directed at physicians.

By presenting physicians with their individual prescribing patterns, pharmaceutical companies have the ability to place undue pressure on medical professionals to alter their prescribing practices. This creates an impression with the public that decisions are being made based on something other than what is in the best interest of the patient, eroding faith in the medical community and leading to patients, appropriately or not, questioning the judgment of medical professionals.

The proposed bill only restricts the sale of physician identified prescription records when such records will be used to market prescription drugs to doctors and other medical personnel who write prescriptions. The bill protects and immunizes doctors from any undue pressure created by the knowledge that pharmaceutical companies and their representatives actively monitor the physicians' prescription habits (for compliance with their suggestions). By eliminating this pressure, the state seeks to reassure the public that the patient's best interest remains the most prominent factor considered by doctors when prescribing.

This bill recognizes the importance of keeping open the channels of communication between physicians and pharmaceutical company representatives and therefore would not in anyway prevent the sales representatives from providing information about products to physicians. For this reason the bill does not restrict pharmaceutical companies' ability or freedom to meet and inform doctors.

This bill aims to arrest the slow damage done by prescriptions written for brand-name drugs when equally efficacious, and much cheaper, generic drugs are available. Money spent on health-care is sky-rocketing, and ample evidence exists that many citizens are making very tough choices: skipping meals so that they buy their medicines, not taking their medicines because they cannot afford a whole month's supply, skipping one of their medicines so that they can take the others, etc. This law seeks to minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility that patients' health will continue to be affected by these less-than-optimum prescription habits that are enabled and encouraged by drug companies who seek to promote the use and prescription of their brand name drug.

In addition, the legislation would not prohibit the use of any doctor identified prescribing data for conducting clinical trials, or health research regarding the effects of practitioner prescribing practices, conducting drug safety evaluations, product recalls and specific risk management plans, as identified or requested by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The legislation is being proposed to help retain patient confidence in the medical profession and to control the cost of health care, particularly the rising cost of prescription drugs by recognizing that such prescribing practices increased spending for publicly funded health insurance programs. High prices for prescription drugs

have serious, harmful consequences for millions of New Yorkers. The effects on consumers of high prescription drug prices are well understood they forego their medicines when costs become too high.

Legislative history

2009-2010: A.5B91-1,3 Ordered to Third Reading 2006: A.11158/S.7926 Referred to Higher Education

Fiscal implications

None.

Local fiscal implication

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after it shall have become a law; provided, however, that the amendments made to article 2-A of the public health law made by sections one and two of this act shall survive the repeal of such article as provided in section 79 of part C of chapter 58 of the laws of 2005, as amended; and provided further that section three of this act shall take effect immediately.