AMA makes sharing prescribing data a matter of choice

While some physicians oppose sharing their private prescribing information with anybody, least of all pharmaceutical representatives, many others are not concerned. Some even see the advantages of sharing this information. Like so many issues in medicine -- this one is neither black nor white.

Personally, I am happy to share my own prescribing information as long as my patients' privacy is protected. (HIPAA requirements pretty much guarantee this.) I enjoy sparring with drug representatives about the cost and efficacy of their drugs. I occasionally learn something valuable from those encounters. But not all physicians feel the same way.

In fact, some physicians have an almost visceral response to this data collection and the way it is subsequently used in pharmaceutical marketing. To accommodate these varying points of view and to preserve physician choice, the AMA launched its Physician Data Restriction Program in 2006.

PDRP offers physicians the option of withholding their prescribing data from pharmaceutical sales representatives while still making it available for medical research purposes. The program also allows doctors to register complaints against sales representatives or pharmaceutical companies who they believe are using their prescribing data inappropriately.

PDRP is available to all physicians, both AMA members and nonmembers. We are very pleased to offer it as a way to give physicians a choice about the accessibility of their prescribing data.

Preserving physician choice is a big deal for me and for the AMA. My personal view is that I don't want the government to legislate the details surrounding my medical practice, especially when a solution is already in place.

Physician choice, however, is being threatened. Last month, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reversed a lower-court ruling that a recently passed New Hampshire law banning sales of physician-specific prescribing data was unconstitutional. This decision means that state laws, not physician preference, may dictate how these data are collected and shared in the future.

That's too bad. Some doctors have found that collection and sharing of data has led to more efficient interactions with pharmaceutical representatives. They believe that prescribing figures enhance the representative's ability to discuss treatment information relevant to individual physician practices, or they are interested in their own prescribing information.

The AMA does not collect, license, sell or have access to physician prescribing data. Health care information companies collect and compile physician prescribing data and sell it to pharmaceutical firms. Through licensing agreements with these companies, the AMA can exert influence to offer programs such as PDRP.

A Gallup survey conducted before launching PDRP found that 84% of physicians said either they were not concerned about the release of prescribing data or that the ability to "opt out" of the release of their data to pharmaceutical sales representatives would alleviate their concerns. So PDRP was launched to give physicians choice in this matter.

We are proud to say that PDRP is working very well and is meeting the needs of participating physicians. Of the physicians that expressed an opinion on PDRP in a recent market research study, 96% were either satisfied or very satisfied with the program. This high level of satisfaction resulted in 56% of respondents telling a colleague about the program.

The PDRP is available to all physicians. It preserves physician autonomy and eliminates the need for restrictive legislative action. To date, more than 18,000 physicians have chosen to restrict their prescribing information through the AMA's PDRP. To learn more about PDRP or to enroll, visit it online (link). Try it -- you'll like it!