Print
Email
Print Edition StoriesFriday, January 9, 2009
Exec: New Mass. doc disclosure rules drove one big meeting away
By Marc Songini
Rodney Brown on NECN: Hacking into medical devices
In their own words: Tod Woolf, CEO, RXi Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Live from BIO 2008: Josh Boger, president and CEO, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The state’s upcoming guidelines for the conduct of medical manufacturers with health care givers has already spooked one major national medical association so much that it has yanked an upcoming annual meeting out of Boston, due six years from now, according to a Boston hospitality industry leader.
That statement came during testimony from Patrick Moscaritolo, president and CEO of the Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau. He and other industry and consumer advocates spoke during a public hearing this morning at the Mass. Dept. of Public Health (DPH) headquarters in Boston. The DPH is holding two hearings on the proposed guidelines it’s crafting as part of the state’s Act to Promote Cost Containment, Transparency, and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Care. The legislation, passed in August, calls for DPH to develop a set of guidelines that will go into effect in July.
However, industry representatives are claiming that the current draft is already too strict, and will discourage companies from doing clinical and other work in the state.
Moreover, part of the verbiage sets strict limits on pharmaceuticals or medical device companies from paying doctors to travel or attend a conference. Because of this, a “major disease” association that had already signed contracts with hotels for a proposed 2015 meeting in Boston has gotten cold feet, said Moscaritolo. It “cited the new law and the uncertainty of their doctors getting Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits and the association’s ability to generate sponsorships for the meeting as the reasons they were canceling their contracts and pulling out.”
He declined to name the organization, put produced a copy of a cancellation letter, which was dated Dec. 30. and sent to a major Boston waterfront hotel. Moscaritolo said this was just one of hundreds of medical and medical-related meetings held in the city annually that was at risk. Philadelphia and San Diego, among other rivals, would take this business instead. Moreover, overall, one of Boston’s key attraction is its medical and life sciences industries, and it potentially could face the loss of millions in revenue should that sector suffer.
“We’re not Indianapolis, where we can hold a tractor pull,” he told the DPH committee. “We’re not Texas, where we can have a rodeo. This is part of our brand and the kinds of meetings we attract.”
Critics were especially hostile to any research disclosure requirements, which force doctors or clinical researchers and companies to divulge their relationships. Currently, the draft calls for companies to disclose any gift made to a doctor exceeding $50. Critics claimed disclosing research agreements would spook any company considering doing trials in the state, as their competitors would be able to deduce what their long term strategy was by seeing what type of researchers were being hired to do studies.
This will impact not just large companies, but smaller research firms that are employed in the state, doing research and already following the guidelines set up by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they said. “Massachusetts has become a Mecca for continuing drug development,” testified David Miller, medical director of Northeast Medical Research Associates Inc. His Dartmouth-based company specializes in doing asthma and allergies research. Currently, companies seeking to contain costs are also spreading the drug development efforts to China, Russia, and South America. “To adopt overall restrictive policies would only place the future of medical research in Massachusetts at risk,” he said.
On the other hand, patient rights advocates felt the guidelines could be even stronger to prevent undue influence of medical device or pharmaceutical companies over doctors. Nor will the guidelines harm the state’s economy, they say, as it already has a wealth hospitals and universities that will continue to attract companies. “We know that other jurisdictions have passed similar regulations, such as Minnesota, and not had a negative impact,” said Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, executive director of Health Care for All, a Boston-based advocacy group.
She emphasized the importance of patients knowing any financial relationship between their doctor and a drug or device company, and wanted the disclosure section of the draft regulations to be made even stronger.
A second DPH hearing is scheduled for January 12 at UMass Medical School in Worcester; The public commentary period will last until January 19.
RSS Feeds
Comments
Please Login/Register to post comments.
No comments have been added or approved.