For Safety’s Sake, Sales Reps Need Privacy

The outcome of the three most consequential biopharma bills of this legislative session—SB 11, HB 6870, and HB 7192—remains in play at the General Assembly. 

Together, these bills cover a gamut of hot button issues, including drug price controls, Canadian drug importation and the 340B drug discount program.

How, if at all, they will be consolidated, revised or tabled is under consideration but very much uncertain.

In the meantime, several bills thought to be easily passed or passed over are receiving greater attention.

Safety Concerns

One is SB 1355. Its Section 2 (d) removes a provision of Public Act 23-171 that requires the prominent posting of the names of pharmaceutical representatives on the Department of Consumer Protection’s website.

Removal of this section will better comport with the intent of PA 23-171 and addresses significant safety concerns.

The overarching public policy goal of PA 23-171 was to establish registration of pharmaceutical representatives with the DCP.

Removal of this section addresses significant safety concerns.

Registration, in turn, triggers payment of a $150 annual fee per representative and annual provision of certain information to DCP by pharmaceutical representatives/pharmaceutical marketing firms, including the number of contacts with prescribing practitioners and pharmacists, the specialty of each prescribing practitioner and pharmacist, whether product samples, materials, or gifts were provided to prescribing practitioners, a practitioner’s staff, or a pharmacist, and the aggregate number of free samples dispensed.

In addition, each pharmaceutical representative is required to disclose to prescribing practitioners and pharmacists the list price of legend drugs and the “variation efficacy of the legend drug” to different racial and ethnic groups.

Sales Reps’ Personal Information

PA 23-171 is about two bilateral relationships: (1) registration of pharmaceutical representatives with the DCP; and (2), certain disclosures pharmaceutical representatives owe to prescribing practitioners and pharmacists.

Other than PA 23-171 Section 4(d)’s peculiar directive that the DCP post on the internet a list of pharmaceutical representatives, nothing in the law is about providing personally identifiable information to the public.

It is unwise to make such information publicly available, and therefore the removal of Section 4(d) is prudent, for significant privacy and safety concerns.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of significant animosity toward large institutions, organizations, and corporations.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of significant animosity toward large institutions, organizations, and corporations.

This can manifest itself in harassment and violence toward representatives of such institutions, organizations and corporations.

This phenomenon was all too apparent in murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Those of us who work with biopharma and biotech companies are struck by the increasing number of occasions that members of the public take it upon themselves to harass company scientists, executives, and representatives.

A significant security presence is now standard protocol on company property and at events and forums involving company representatives.

Samples Make Sales Reps a Target

It is also important to underscore that pharmaceutical representatives provide incredibly valuable services to both prescribing practitioners and pharmacists in the form of education about new medicines and medical advances, and to patients in the form of samples.

To a few bad actors, knowledge of the availability of samples can be a powerful trigger for theft from pharmaceutical representatives.

Knowledge of the availability of samples can be a powerful trigger for theft.

The bill is meant to ensure privacy and safety. It’s based on the understanding that it is counterproductive to post a public billboard on DCP’s website with the identity of pharmaceutical representatives.

The Bioscience Growth Council is working to make sure legislators understand the value of the changes SB 1355 would provide and the importance of bringing the bill before the General Assembly for an affirmative vote.

---

Paul Pescatello is the executive director of CBIA’s Bioscience Growth Council and chair of We Work for Health Connecticut. Follow him on X @CTBio.