The Public Health Law Watch initiative identifies potential legislative and regulatory changes that have an impact to harm public health but have yet to break into the mainstream conversation, identifies ways to engage on these issues, and provides legal analysis and commentary.

Philadelphia’s City Council could have fought opioids by placing limits on pharma reps

Philadelphia’s City Council could have fought opioids by placing limits on pharma reps

By Robert I. Field, Ph.D., J.D., M.P.H.

Does the over-prescribing of opioids lie at the heart of the addiction crisis? Some members of Philadelphia City Council along with many public health experts think so. The Philadelphia City Council recently considered a bill to limit the activities of pharmaceutical sales representatives, also known as detailers, who promote prescription drugs to physicians.

The bill would have required detailers to register with the city for a fee of up to $250, wear identification badges, refrain from giving even small gifts like free lunches to doctors and their staffs, and submit the sales materials they use to the city for review.

Philadelphia is fertile ground for selling pharmaceuticals. It is home to several major academic health systems and physician organizations, and the region contains the headquarters of numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. It also plays host to a large number of medical conventions that generate business for local restaurants and hotels. Opponents of the bill warned it would have encouraged convention sponsors to look elsewhere, driving away the industry, and the jobs and tax revenue that go with it.

In the end, opponents carried the day, and the bill was defeated by a vote of 9-5.

Would the bill have worked? Recent research suggests that it could have.

A study published in 2017 by researchers at UCLA and Carnegie Mellon examined the effects of limits on drug detailing at 19 academic medical centers around the country. It found that the restrictions resulted in fewer prescriptions for brand-name drugs that detailers promoted. The reduction in prescriptions was modest, but clear.

There is every reason to believe that the proposed limits in Philadelphia would have had a similar effect. And fewer patients receiving prescriptions for opioids could have led to fewer becoming addicted. For a plague as serious as opioid addition, even a small reduction in the number of new victims would prevent a tremendous amount of human suffering, not to mention medical and law enforcement costs that go with it.

With the bill’s defeat, Philadelphia’s risk of losing convention business has faded. At the same time, the opioid epidemic continues unabated. The City is left to wonder which threat is the greatest.

This blog post first appeared in the Health Cents blog on Philly.com.

_______________________

About the author: Robert I. Field is a member of the Inquirer’s Health Advisory Panel, and nationally known expert in health care regulation and its role in implementing public policy. He holds a joint appointment as professor of law at the School of Law and professor of health management and policy at the School of Public Health at Drexel University.

Gottlieb's threat of federal vaccine mandates: questionable legality, poor policy

Gottlieb's threat of federal vaccine mandates: questionable legality, poor policy

Fact checking Trump's drug pricing claims in the State of the Union

Fact checking Trump's drug pricing claims in the State of the Union