Brightening Up: The Effect of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act on Existing Regulation of Pharmaceutical Marketing

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 315-322

  Gorlach, Igor ^a,b   Pham Kanter, Genevieve ^c,d  

^a Foley Hoag LLP ^*  (United States)

^b HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Global Health and Health Disparities   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMICS; GIFT GIVING; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MARKETING; PHYSICIAN; POLICY; UNITED STATES;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; GIFT GIVING; HUMANS; MARKETING; PHYSICIANS; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84876971697     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jlme.12022     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. See Congressional Budget Office, "Promotional Spending for Prescription Drugs," Economic and Budget Issue Brief, December 2, 2009. This amount excludes the retail value of free product samples, direct-to-consumer advertising, and other expenditures such as research grants related to product use that may have promotional value.
2. See D. Wilson, "Data on Fees to Doctors is Called Hard to Parse, "New York Times, April 13, 2010, at B3.
3. Except Vermont.
4. J. Ross, J. Lackner, P. Lurie, C. Gross, S. Wolfe, and H. Krumholz, "Pharmaceutical Company Payments to Physicians: Early Experiences with Disclosure Laws in Vermont and Minnesota," JAMA 297, no. 11 (2007): 1216-1223.
5. Paid to Prescribe? Exploring the Relationship Between Doctors and the Drug Industry, Before the Special Committee on Aging, 110th Cong. 253 (2007) (statement of Peter Lurie, M.D., MPH, deputy director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Washington, DC).
6. 105 C.M.R. §§970.000, et seq.
7. Minn. Stat. Ann. §151.461.
8. 18 V.S.A. §4631a.
9. Cal. Health & Safety Code §119402.
10. CT ST §21a-70e.
11. Nev. Admin. Code §§639.616-639.619.
12. D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, §§8300, et seq.
13. Colorado Constitution, Art. XXIX, §3. (Amendment 41).
14. Cal. Health & Safety Code §119402; CT ST §21a-70e.
15. IMS Health Inc. v. Mills, 616 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010); IMS Health Inc. v. Ayotte, 550 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008); IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell, 630 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2010).
16. Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct 2653 (2011).
17. Eli Lilly Press Release. Lilly Set to Become First Pharmaceutical Research Company to Disclose Physician Payments, September 24, 2008.
18. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).
19. Sec. 6002. Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership or Investment Interests (codified as 42 U.S.C.A. §1320a-7h).
20. 42 U.S.C.A. §1320a-7h(e)(2).
21. 42 U.S.C.A. §1320a-7h(e)(5).
22. 42 U.S.C.A. §1395x®.
23. 42 U.S.C.A. §1320a-7h(d)(3).
24. 42 U.S.C.A. §1320a-7h(d)(3)(B)(iv).
25. Proposed Rule, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs; Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership or Investment Interests, 76 Fed. Reg. 78742 (Dec 19, 2011).
26. Note that although reporting of NPI is reported, it will not be made available in the public data. We are unsure why this number will be withheld; the names of the physicians will be still be reported so they are identifiable.