Deval Should Veto Section 14 of the Senate Bill 2863

Holly Robichaud explains why.

Who isn’t for lower health care costs?  But sometimes the best intentions don’t produce the best results.

Section 14 of the Senate Bill 2863, An Act Promoting Cost Containment, Transparency and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care would require public disclosure of payments valued at $50 or more between pharmaceutical research companies and health care providers.  Physicians’ names would appear on public websites.  As you may suspect this could hurt ongoing clinical research in Massachusetts.

Last month Governor Patrick signed into law the bio-tech bill containing $1 billion worth of incentives for that industry to grow here.  However, if Section 14 of S. 2863 is implemented we will see a significant loss of clinical trials which have in the past lead to important discoveries.  Aren’t we trying to encourage life science development?

According to the National Institute of Health, there are presently 5,673 clinical trials being conducted in the Commonwealth.  Many studies are recruiting patients.  Moreover, biopharmaceutical jobs are on the rise and we can expect another 15,000 jobs to be added by 2014.  Unfortunately, these gains will not be realized if the Governor signs into law section 14 which will deter doctors from participating in research. 

Dr. Anil Nair, an Assistant Professor at Boston University’s Department of Neurology has written an open letter to Deval Patrick, which I’m publishing in full in the extended entry:

Dear Governor Patrick,

As a practicing neurologist and a clinical researcher at Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Center, I’d like to thank you for the leadership you’ve exhibited to build upon the Commonwealth’s already strong presence in the life sciences. I was proud and deeply encouraged when you signed the related legislation into law less than two months ago.

This amazing commitment to create the nation’s premiere environment for the advancement of life sciences provides optimism to those of us who have a vested interest in a strong and vibrant research community. And importantly, it offers great hope for patients who anxiously await new cures and treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and other devastating ailments.

However, I am deeply concerned that the great promise afforded by this initiative could be endangered by subsequent healthcare legislation (S 2683) awaiting your signature. While I fully endorse the underlying intent of the legislation – lowering healthcare costs in the state – Section 14, which requires disclosure of payments valued at $50 or more by pharmaceutical companies to physicians and other healthcare professionals, is troublesome.

Posting this information – essentially a list of companies, dollar figures and doctors’ names – on a public Web provides a one-dimensional window into the existence of a professional partnership. It offers little if any useful information and threatens to raise unnecessary suspicions and misinterpretations.

Of particular concern is the fact that those who access and make judgments on such information may lack the context to understand the true nature of the payments.

For example, in many cases a payment provided by a pharmaceutical company to a physician is used to cover the hospital and staff expenses necessary to conduct the research, as opposed to being actual compensation to the individual physician. Some hospitals or academic research centers even insist that the physician take the payment in his or her name, so that the institution can avoid the appearance of having received payment from a company.

The disclosure requirement disregards such complexities and nuances in the partnerships between researchers, institutions and companies. If enacted, it is possible – perhaps even probable – that an entire grant will be linked to an individual physician’s name, creating misimpressions in the public eye as to the level and purpose of the compensation. Such misperceptions could unfairly impact the physician’s reputation, and more alarmingly, could jeopardize the relationship shared with his or her patients.

If Massachusetts adopts this disclosure requirement, I fear future research, patient access to clinical studies and the state’s life sciences program would suffer irreparable harm. I urge you to return S 2863 to the legislature with an amendment to eliminate Section 14.

Sincerely,

Anil Nair MD.

Assistant Professor, Department of Neurology Boston University School
Boston, MA

So, Deval, what are you going to do?

Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.