By Jim O'Sullivan
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, APRIL 14, 2008…. Pharmaceutical companies are attacking Senate President Therese Murray's effort to block their firms from providing gifts, meals or trips to doctors, calling it an anti-business policy that would hobble efforts to deliver cutting-edge drugs to patients.
In a letter to the chairs of the Legislature's Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee, executives from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbot Bioresearch Center, Genentech, all of which have facilities in Massachusetts, ripped the gift ban as counter to Beacon Hill's painstaking efforts to lure the life sciences industry, highlighted by Gov. Deval Patrick's nearly year-old $1 billion incentives plan headed for legislative approval.
"The proposal to restrict the ability of biopharma companies to interact with physicians … will send the message loud and clear to biopharma CEO's considering expansion or new investment: Go elsewhere," reads the letter, signed by Pfizer COO W. Stephen Faraci, Amgen executive director Mark Duggan, Genentech state government affairs director Todd Kaufman, and Abbot divisional vice president Peter Isakson.
"We're sure you agree that a campaign contribution doesn't impact your commitment to serve your constituents," they wrote.
Due for Senate debate Thursday, Murray's cost control plan, unveiled last month, would finance and encourage providers to evolve from paper to electronic medical records, and mandate public hearings for health insurer rate increases over 7 percent. The ban applies to "a gift of any value," and imposes a fine of up to $5,000 or a prison term up to two years. It would be the nation's most aggressive, said people who have reviewed the bill.
Sen. Mark Montigny, a leading anti-corruption voice in the Senate, said many doctors find such aggressive marketing "distracting," and swung back at the biopharma companies' argument.
"If their lobbying and corrupting of public policy wasn't so expensive, it would almost be comical watching them struggle to make arguments with a straight face. Because you can't on this one," said Montigny (D-New Bedford), who proposed a ban in 2005.
Through a spokesman, Murray declined comment. Senate aides said Murray's intent was not to prevent drug representatives from educating doctors, but to reduce the practice of exorbitant favors in the process.
The executives look to dismiss the idea of doctors "being wined and dined, flown to exotic destinations or given tickets courtside to see the Celtics." Instead, they said, doctors attend "lunch and learn" programs on FDA decisions or go to speakers' conferences in the evening.
They wrote, "Would there be a growing life sciences industry for this state to try to attract and support if that industry weren't allowed to compete in the marketplace for a profitable return on its research investment?
"The answer of course is no. The same industry in which the state's life sciences initiative seeks to invest more than $1 billion must have the ability to bring its products to patients, through responsible interactions with physicians, in order to remain viable enterprises."
Christopher Anderson, president of the Mass. High Tech Council, said the effort to curb marketing pointed to a larger "divergence" on the Hill.
"Which state policy is the Massachusetts state policy toward economic development? When you try to court the life sciences industry, you're really courting the pharmaceutical industry, because they're effectively one."
The executives sent the letter to Sen. Jack Hart (D-South Boston) and Rep. Daniel Bosley (D-North Adams), and carbon-copied the other members of a conference committee working over the life sciences bill, along with Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.
Montigny, who chaired the now-defunct Health Care Committee, said the drug company representatives' roles should not be confused with expert medical advice.
"These are now knowledgeable people that are educating doctors," he said. "It's just preposterous to think they're anything other than very successful salespeople."
A separate Senate bill, restricting non-profit executive pay to $500,000, last week drew ridicule from the state's top hospital lobby group, which said the cap would render Massachusetts a "laughingstock."
Murray's plan outlaws "payment, entertainment, meals, travel, honorarium, subscription, advance, services or anything of value" provided from pharmaceutical manufacturers to a physician or physician's family member, a physician's employee or agent, or a health care facility employee.
Both co-chairs of the Health Care Financing Committee, which endorsed the bill last week, said it would likely undergo heavy revision during legislative deliberations.
-- END -
