Bill to curb doctor 'data mining' runs into resistance in Olympia

OLYMPIA -- For pharmaceutical companies, it is worth more than $3 billion a year to know which medications your doctor is prescribing.

But for many doctors and consumer advocates, keeping that information private should be priceless.

Senate Bill 6241 would prevent prescription drug companies from "data mining" physicians' records -- a process by which pharmaceutical companies buy prescription information from pharmacies to cross-check against a list of doctors' prescription ID numbers that are purchased from the American Medical Association.

The combined information produces a detailed list of individual doctors' drug prescription patterns, which helps drug company sales representatives market new products to physicians.

"Vioxx was pushed very aggressively as the greatest thing for arthritis pain and, by gosh, it ended up killing people," said Dr. Bryan Wicks, president of the Washington State Medical Association. "But it got prescribed because drug reps were in doctors' offices pushing it aggressively."

Proposed by Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, the bill initially had widespread Senate support, but it passed by a narrow 26-22 after concerns about limits it would place on the spread of AIDS-prevention drug information.

Earlier this week the legislation was passed out of the House Health Care and Wellness Committee, but according to House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, there may not be enough votes to bring it to the floor for debate.

Kessler said many legislators thought the bill was overly aggressive because doctors already have the option of opting out of data collection.

A similar measure was proposed in the House earlier in the session, but after two days of deliberation in caucus, House Democrats failed to bring it up for a floor vote because it lacked support.

Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, the sponsor of the House measure, said lobbying against the bill has been "extremely aggressive."

The Senate bill's co-sponsor, Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley, backed away from her support and voted against the bill in committee after language was changed to prevent doctors from signing an exemption to make their information available.

This is "a red-herring issue. ... It's looking at people that are easy to 'villainize' and not addressing the true cost drivers of health care," Pflug said.

But Fairley called that "a funny argument to make."

"They're not trying to sell you a cheaper model. They're not trying to make it 'most reasonable' for your patients," Fairley said. "The cost of medication is what is driving the rising cost of health care these days."

Opponents of the bill say it would unfairly cut into constitutionally protected commercial speech, and they raise the point that doctors are highly educated professionals who should be able to make decisions for themselves.

"And doctors have no ability to say no? And they are the victims because they accept a free lunch where reps show them drugs that -- yes, may be more expensive -- but can be more effective?" said Mike Ryherd, a contract lobbyist for IMS, the largest pharmaceutical data-collection company in the U.S.

The bill would exempt the use of data for research or product-recall purposes, Ryherd said. But he said that if the bill were passed, IMS would have little incentive to collect the data because the pharmaceutical market would not pay for Washington's data.

It is "98 percent or more of our business. If you take away that business, there is not money for collecting the information," Ryherd said.