MRA testifies on Vermont S. 104 seeking to legalize research with physicians - Articles

Articles

20Apr

MRA testifies on Vermont S. 104 seeking to legalize research with physicians

MRA testified this morning on legislation in the Vermont legislature, S. 104, which would legalize research with physicians.

Current Vermont law and regulation -- Act 128 (2010), and 18 V.S.A. Sec. 4631a and 4632 -- are ambiguous, at best, on the legality of incentive payments for research with physicians sponsored by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. That ambiguity has led manufacturers to avoid physician research studies with Vermont physicians. This is the case even though such payments are made through independent survey and opinion research companies and the manufacturers are not aware of which providers participated.

MRA testified on April 21 before the House Committee on Health Care, at the suggestion of the Assistant Attorney General, Wendy Morgan. MRA had previously met with her regarding Vermont’s regulations, because the Attorney General’s Office is the relevant enforcement body.

As introduced by the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, S. 104 would add to the list of “Allowable expenditures” in the law, “Other research paid at fair market value, as long as the manufacturer on behalf of which the survey or other research is conducted is unaware of the identity of the health care provider receiving expenditures related to the research.” While such incentive payments would not need to each be individually reported, manufacturers would still need to report, “for each research activity ...the number of health care providers participating in the research, the total amount paid to the entity conducting the research, and, if a product is distributed as part of the research, the product name, dosage, and number of units distributed.”

MRA supports the Senate version of S. 104 as a huge improvement over the current situation for incentives in Vermont. Though we have some concerns that any reporting requirements, even the aggregate required under this legislation, may still deter manufacturers from conducting research with physicians, based on experience in a state like West Virginia, our concerns are somewhat alleviated by Marjorie Powell, Senior Assistant General Counsel for PhRMA. Testifying just before MRA, she intimated that the reporting requirements in S. 104 would not pose a problem for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Should this legislation become law, MRA will seek to hold the pharmaceutical and medical device industry to that statement.

The members of the Health Care Committee appreciated MRA’s efforts to educate on the practice of marketing research. However, unlike the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, and Congress, these legislators seemed particularly interested in: (1) perfect double-blind research studies, in which the participating health care providers would have no way of knowing who might have sponsored a study; and (2) the exact dollar amounts of incentives paid to participating providers and whether sponsoring manufacturers could ever know such amounts.

The first presents an unattainable goal, since health care providers are not stupid and could infer from many studies who might be the sponsors. The only feasible route to satisfy such a standard would be to only allow incentives for studies that don’t mention or imply an actual product.

The second goal is not necessarily relevant. Moreover, research companies tend to not disclose their incentive payment structures, especially since incentives can vary dramatically by the type and length of the study, the specialty of the providers, whether the study involves a group or providers or a single in-depth-interview, and whether the study is conducted online, by phone or in-person.

S. 104 seems to have the momentum to be passed into law before Vermont’s legislative session ends next month. MRA will do what it can to help make that happen, as we have successfully in the past in Massachusetts (2009), Minnesota (2010), and the federal healthcare law (2010), and to advocate for and protect pharmaceutical marketing research with physicians.

About the Author

Howard Fienberg

Howard Fienberg

Based in Washington, DC, Howard is the Insights Association's lobbyist for the marketing research and data analytics industry, focusing primarily on consumer privacy and data security, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), tort reform, and the funding and integrity of the decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Howard has more than two decades of public policy experience. Before the Insights Association, he worked in Congress as senior legislative staffer for then-Representatives Christopher Cox (CA-48) and Cliff Stearns (FL-06). He also served more than four years with a science policy think tank, working to improve the understanding of scientific and social research and methodology among journalists and policymakers. Howard is also co-director of The Census Project, a 900+ member coalition in support of a fair and accurate Census and ACS. He has also served previously on the Board of Directors for the National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics and and the Association of Government Relations Professionals. Howard has an MA International Relations from the University of Essex in England and a BA Honors Political Studies from Trent University in Canada, and has obtained the Certified Association Executive (CAE), Professional Lobbying Certificate (PLC) and the Public Policy Certificate (PPC). When not running advocacy for the Insights Association, Howard enjoys hockey, NFL football, sci-fi and horror movies, playing with his dog, and spending time with family and friends.

Related

New York A. 9315 and S. 7623 Would Restrict AI-like Tech Use with Research Subjects

New York A. 9315 and S. 7623 Would Restrict AI-like Tech Use with Research Subjects

​​​​​​​New York A. 9315 and S. 7623 would restrict artificial intelligence (AI) used in decis...

Read More >
Fighting for You: April 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Update

Fighting for You: April 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Update

The first full month of spring brought with it a shiny new federal privacy bill, some developments o...

Read More >
Vermont H. 710 Would Restrict Development of Generative AI Systems

Vermont H. 710 Would Restrict Development of Generative AI Systems

Vermont H. 710 would require significant risk mitigation, outside evaluation, and impact assessments...

Read More >
Issues of Interest to Insights Industry Surface in President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address

Issues of Interest to Insights Industry Surface in President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address

President Joe Biden’s recent State of the Union Address to Congress touched on a few policy areas o...

Read More >
Washington H.B. 1951 Could Restrict AI Use in Dealing with Research Subjects

Washington H.B. 1951 Could Restrict AI Use in Dealing with Research Subjects

Washington H.B. 1951 would regulate artificial intelligence (AI) used in decision-making, including ...

Read More >
Fighting for You: December 2023 Legislative and Regulatory Update

Fighting for You: December 2023 Legislative and Regulatory Update

As the insights industry closes out 2023 on the calendar, the Insights Association looked back at ou...

Read More >
Members only Article - Please login to view