Early Returns Unfavorable

The AP reporter who watched the oral arguments doesn't seem to think the law has good chances.

Vermont v IMS Health

Oral arguments on the first data-mining case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court are being heard today.

I thought there might be a way to listen to the actual arguments live, but that doesn't seem to be the case. (Ridiculous in the 21st century, I say, if we claim to be trying to keep citizens engaged.)

But transcripts are put online pretty quickly. Here's a site I've found:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx

I gave a talk on data-mining at the Left Forum a few weeks ago. Most of the audience had never heard of data-mining. They were absolutely shocked that this existed. One of the questions after my talk was literally, "But they can't really have ALL that information, right?" And I had to say, Um, No, they do have all of it.

Oral arguments are April 26.

The Supremes

I guess I should blow the dust off this blog and kick the tires. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear the initial datamining case:

The justices agreed to review a data mining law adopted in 2007 in Vermont that prevented the sale, transmission or use of prescriber-identifiable information for marketing a prescription drug unless the prescribing doctor consented.

So I'll try to post a little more often as this develops. NPA may try to write an amicus brief, and certainly there will be opportunities for advocacy and press.

out of the office reply

i'll be over here for the next month: whougandabelieve.blogspot.com

Data Mining's Decline

The Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal of the New Hampshire data-mining law.

This should be a kick in the pants for legislators in states like New York: put effort into a solid ban on prescription data-mining, there's no chance now that it'll get overturned.

Of course, legislators in New York have plenty of kicks in their pants these days.

Massachusetts prescription law

Beantown? More like, Thanks for the offer of free beans mr. drug rep but no thanks town!

And by that I mean: Massachusetts is trying to get their anti-prescription-data-mining grooooove on!

Which can obviously be translated into: the home of Paul Revere is making a good faith effort to limit the marketing influence of pharmaceutical companies on physicians. You can see the entire bill here. But as they say in blogging and other sleazy industries, here's the money graf:

G. Before utilizing health care practitioner prescriber data for marketing purposes, manufacturers must give health care practitioners the opportunity to request that their prescriber data :
i. be withheld from company sales representatives, and
ii. not be used for marketing purposes.

H. Nothing in this section shall prohibit pharmaceutical manufacturing companies from using prescriber data to:
i. impart important safety and risk information to prescribers of a particular drug or device;
ii. conduct research;
iii. comply with FDA mandated risk management plans that require manufacturers to identify and interact with health care practitioners who prescribe certain drugs or devices; or
iv. track adverse events of marketed dugs, biologics or devices.

At first glance it looks great. I'm reading section G, and I'm seeing that Pfizer has to come to me and ask my permission before using my prescription data. It's sounding good.

But I stroll over to section H, and now Pfizer is allowed to use my prescription data, to "impart safety and risk information."

Now, I don't want to offend anyone by impuning the integrity of pharmaceutical companies. But wouldn't Pfizer argue that all those free lunches and dinners are "impart[ing] safety and risk information"?

By which I mean to say: can't they continue to operate exactly as they have been?

Sure, I get it, that's not how the law was intended. But I have a feeling that the lawyers who work for Eli Lilly are going to choose to interpret this law in a way that let's them do exactly what they've always done.....