 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas >Health > | Add to MyNCSL |
Health Program
Marketing and Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) of PharmaceuticalsUpdated: August 2008 
This report is a compendium of state laws, filed bills not enacted and related resources describing or affecting the marketing and advertising of pharmaceuticals, including disclosure of information relating to the practices. "Read Two Drug Ads and Call Me in the Morning"- Soaring drug costs have become a matter of concern for lawmakers and their constituents, especially those on fixed incomes. One question is just how much is advertising on television and in the popular press contributing to these increased costs. At an estimated annual cost of $2.5 billion, pharmaceutical advertising to consumers has indeed made drug companies and their brand products household names. A new analysis provided by the managed care industry reports that from 1999 to 2000, prescriptions written for the top 50 most heavily advertised drugs rose 24.6 percent, compared to 4.3 percent for all other drugs combined.1 Drug manufacturing is a $122 billion industry, so a small increase in market share can reflect a multimillion-dollar boost for any particular company. With pressure to try to curb the increased costs of prescription medicine, lawmakers are taking a closer look at the implications of pricey advertisements on state-funded programs. Legislative lawyers point out that it is nearly impossible for individual states to control national advertisements, now regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. But this has not prevented some states from seeking solutions. Twelve considered bills regarding direct-to-consumer advertising in 2001, and at least one-West Virginia-enacted a law that gives the director of the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency discretion to use "innovative strategies," such as requiring prescription drug manufacturers to show how much they're spending on advertising and what that adds to drug costs. However the current director, Tom Susman, believes that West Virginia will most likely train a team of pharmacists to meet with and educate doctors about the fiscal impacts of prescribing higher priced and advertised drugs. "The pharmaceutical industry [representatives] don't talk about costs," Susman stated, "We go in and educate [doctors] about less expensive and therapeutic equivalent drugs and then they can make decisions to use less costly generics." Susman added that physicians [who participate in Medicaid] have an incentive to prescribe less costly drugs. "With only so much money to go around and using less expensive drugs, we have more money to put into paying the West Virginia physicians'." Several states-such as Florida, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont-are creating drug lists for Medicaid patients that emphasize cheaper generic products over the popular advertised pharmaceuticals. 1: Statistic from National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Education Foundation, Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising, 2000. November, 2001. www.nichm.org _________________ Enacted State Laws: As of May 2008, eight states: California (2004), Florida (2006) Maine (2003, 2005, 2007), Minnesota (1993), New Hampshire (2006), South Carolina (2006), Vermont (2002, 2007), West Virginia (2001) and the District of Columbia (2003, 2008), have laws or resolutions affecting pharmaceutical marketing. A separate Texas law (2007) requires a state-sponsored public awareness campaign to educate consumers about marketing solicitations by email or Internet. The specific provisions differ among these states - refer to details in the charts below. Note that states such as Maine and Vermont each have two or more separate laws, enacted in different years. Measures that passed both legislative chambers in California and Colorado but were vetoed are not included in the tally above.
This definition of disclosure does NOT include For more recent DTCA and Disclosure Related State Bills and Laws - Please see http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/drugbill07.htm and http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/drugbill08.htm for up to date information. |
|
State/bill/ web link |
Description / excerpts of bill text |
| AK HB 454, HB 457 Rep. Guttenberg |
Would require disclosure of certain drug marketing costs. (Filed 2/13/06; did not pass committee by end of regular session 5/9/06) | |
| AR HB 2970 Rep. Norton |
Would require disclosure of pharmaceutical marketing practices. |
|
CA |
Would create a Prescription drugs manufacturer requirement to submit a report to the State Department of Health Services of health studies or clinical trials that have been or are being conducted by or on behalf of that manufacturer pertaining to those drugs. Authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions to enforce the reporting requirements. (Filed 1/3/05; passed 2nd Reading Assembly, rescinded, sent to inactive file 6/2/05) |
| CA AB 78 Assm. Pavley |
Would require a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) to make disclosures to its purchasers and prospective purchasers, including specified information about the pharmacy benefit manager's revenues and its drug formularies, and to make specified disclosures to the public upon request. Would also establish certain standards and requirements for PBM contracts and the provision of drugs. Would impose requirements on the membership of a pharmacy and therapeutics committee for a PBM, and require a pharmacy benefits manager to meet conditions before substituting a prescribed medication. (Filed 1/18/05; passed Assembly 44y-34n; passed Senate 23y-14n 9/6/05, vetoed by governor 9/29/05) |
|
CA |
Would establish a program that would require manufacturers of drugs for life-threatening chronic conditions that are on the lists for Medi-Cal or the AIDS Drugs Assistance Program to pay the department a rebate equal to the costs of marketing that drug. Requires these manufacturers to disclose to the department all costs incurred in the marketing of the drugs to consumers and physicians. (Filed and sent to committee 5/4/05, 5/25/05) |
|
CA |
Would require every pharmaceutical company to adopt a Comprehensive Compliance Program that includes policies related to interactions with health care professionals and limits on gifts or incentives provided to medical professionals. (Filed and sent to committee 5/9/05) |
|
CA |
Would require a pharmaceutical company entering into a contract with an agency of the state to disclose the percentage of its national operating budget that is expended on marketing purposes, and the percentage of its national operating budget expended on research and development. The bill would prohibit a state department or agency from entering into a contract with a pharmaceutical company in the absence of that disclosure. (Filed and referred to committee 5/24/05; passed Senate 22y-15n, 5/31/05; carried over from 2005; did not pass Assembly committee 6/20/06) | |
| CA SB 401 Sen. Ortiz |
Would further provide that marketing includes a written communication that is provided by a pharmacy to a patient about a different drug or treatment than that being dispensed by the pharmacy and that is paid for, or sponsored by, a manufacturer, labeler, or distributor of prescription drugs, as specified. (Filed 4/12/05; passed Senate 23y-13n, 5/26/05; carried over from 2005 session; held in Assembly committee 8/17/06; did not pass committee by end of regular session 8/31/06) |
| CA AB 2730 Assm. Nation |
Would prohibit the department from entering into a contract for a drug, and from placing a drug on the Medi-Cal contract drug list, if the drug has been promoted in California through the use of direct-to-consumer advertising. (Filed and referred to committee 2/24/06; did not pass committee by end of regular session 8/31/06) |
| CA AJR 49 Rep. Nation |
Would request that the United States Food and Drug Administration aggressively monitor and regulate direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies, and would memorialize the President and the Congress to ban that advertising. (Filed and referred to committee 4/3/06; adopted by Assembly 5/25/06; adopted by Senate 8/22/06) |
| CO SB 06-1 Sen. Hagedorn |
Would require the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to apply for federal authorization to enter into a multi-state drug purchasing pool for the benefit of Colorado's Medicaid recipients and eligible low-income residents; would establish the Colorado Cares Rx Program to allow for the purchase of discounted prescription drugs and authorize use of a preferred drug list; would require a pharmaceutical manufacturer to annually disclose to the Medical Services Board specific expenditure information, including expenditures for direct marketing to consumers and lobbying; would require the Board to disclose expenditure information to the public via the Internet; would refer the question of whether Colorado should enact these cost-saving measures to Colorado voters at the next general election. (Filed 1/1/06; passed Senate 25y-10n, 4/26/06; passed House 64y-1n, 5/3/06; vetoed by governor 5/26/06) | |
|
CT |
Would require public disclosure of gifts by pharmaceutical companies to physicians licensed to practice in Connecticut. |
|
CT |
Would allow the University of CT to establish and operate and study a limited two-year pilot program, to allow appropriately qualified and trained academic detailers to visit licensed physicians in their offices to provide unbiased, evidence-based information on the diagnosis and treatment of selected illnesses, including information pertaining to the use of pharmaceuticals to assist the physicians in improving the quality of patient care and making cost-effective prescribing decisions for various diseases, while simultaneously focusing on patient outcomes. |
|
FL |
Among other things: Would require the disclosure to the commission expenditures for advertising, marketing, and promotion, based on aggregate national data; not including clinical trial, free sample, or educational material costs. |
| FL SB 1408 |
Allows for the development and regulation of electronic prescribing practices and provides protection for consumers, including the prohibition of advertising. Establishes the information that must be contained in electronic prescriptions and provides mechanisms to ensure that patients receive brand name drugs, when such drugs are medically necessary, instead of generic substitutes when prescribed electronically. This bill would also establish disclosure and confidentiality requirements for medical and prescription records. (SB 1408 filed 1/13/06; passed Senate 37y-0n, 3/29/06; passed House 118y-0n, 5/3/06; signed into law by governor as Chapter 2006-271, 6/22/06) |
| HI HB 31 Rep. Takumi |
Would require marketing disclosure by drug manufacturers and require transparency in pharmacy benefit managers (Filed and referred to committee 1/20/05; carried over, but did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
HI |
Among other things: Would require drug manufacturers to disclose economic benefits of $25 or more provided to persons who prescribe, dispense, or purchase prescription drugs. Effective date July 1, 2099. |
|
HI |
Would require marketing disclosures by drug manufacturers, and would require transparency in pharmacy benefit managers. |
| HI HB 1869 Rep. |
Would require that a prescription drug manufacturer post on the publicly accessible Internet web site of the federal National Institutes of Health or another publicly accessible web site, the name of the entity that conducted the clinical trial, a summary of the, the dates of the trial, and the results of the clinical trial, including potential or actual adverse effects of the drug. Would also require that a manufacturer may not present a regulated advertisement, unless that advertisement meets federal and state requirements concerning misbranded drugs and devices and prescription drug advertising. Effective date would begin October 15, 2007. (Filed and referred to committee 1/19/06; passed House, 3/3/06; favorable Senate committee report 3/24/06; measure deferred 4/4/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) |
| HI HB 1875 Rep. Schatz |
Would lower prescription drug costs for individuals, businesses, and the state and protect the health of Hawaii residents by deterring the practice of unethical gift giving by drug manufacturers. This bill would require drug manufacturers to disclose the value, nature and purpose of any gift, fee, payment, subsidy or other economic benefit in excess of $25 that is provided in connection with detailing, promotional or other marketing activities by the manufacturer to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist, health benefit plan administrator or any other person in the state authorized to prescribe, dispense or purchase prescription drugs. (Filed and referred to committee 1/19/06; committee recommends measure be deferred 1/30/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
IL |
Would create the Prescription Drug Ethical Marketing Act. Would require every manufacturer and labeler that sells prescription drugs in the State to disclose to the Director the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, fee, payment, subsidy, or other economic benefit provided in connection with detailing or promotional or other marketing activities by the company, directly or through its pharmaceutical marketers, to any person in the State authorized to prescribe or dispense prescription drugs. Would require the Director to report to the Governor and the General Assembly on the disclosures. Would provide exceptions to the disclosures and for injunctive relief and civil penalties for failure to disclose. (Filed 1/28/05; carried over from 2005 regular session; held in committee 12/06) |
|
IL |
Would require a wholesale drug distributor or pharmacy benefit manager that has entered into a contract with the State to sell or negotiate the sale of a prescription drug to the State at a particular price, then, upon the request of any pharmacy domiciled in this State, the wholesale drug distributor or pharmacy benefit manager must disclose that price and make that prescription drug available to the pharmacy at that same price during the period that the contract with the State is in effect, regardless of the quantity of the drug purchased by the pharmacy. Would only apply to contracts entered into after the effective date of this act. |
|
IA |
Would prohibit a pharmaceutical marketer from offering or providing to any practitioner, hospital, health care facility, pharmacist, or health benefit plan administrator, or any other person in the state authorized or licensed to dispense, distribute, or purchase prescription drugs, any gift not otherwise exempt under the bill. Would specify the gifts exempt from the prohibition; direct pharmaceutical manufacturing companies on an annual basis to disclose gifts made to the board of pharmacy examiners; direct pharmaceutical manufacturing companies on an annual basis to provide the name and address of the individual responsible for the company's compliance with the bill; provide that all trade secrets are to be kept confidential; and authorize the attorney general to bring an action for injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees and to impose a civil penalty for failure of a company to disclose required information. (Filed 3/1/05; did not pass committee by end of regular session 5/23/05*) | |
| ME LD 225 Sen. Mayo |
Would require registration and continuing education of pharmaceutical sales representatives or "detailers." (Filed; died 4/12/05) | |
|
Prohibits pharmaceutical companies from advertising on television, radio or in print unless material meets federal guidelines. Also includes clinical trial requirements that manufacturers "shall post on the public website of the federal National Institutes of Health or another publicly accessible website information concerning any clinical trial that the manufacturer conducted or sponsored beginning October 15, 2002; includes a fee for Rx manufacturers that advertise in the state for maintaining the clinical trial database. | |
|
ME |
Limits the pricing information that a pharmaceutical manufacturer must report to the state to average manufacturer price (AMP) and best price as defined by federal law. It eliminates the instructions on calculating other pharmaceutical pricing information and the requirement to describe the methodology for calculating pricing information that is reported. It also strengthens the confidentiality protection afforded to the reported information. |
|
ME |
Would delay implementation of the deadline for filing reports regarding marketing activities by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Would also clarify that the Department of Health and Human Services may disclose that information to an entity that provides services to the department under the laws requiring those reports, but specifies that such disclosure does not change the confidential status of the information. |
| ME HP 5 / LD 4 Rep. Faircloth |
Prohibits the sale of pharmaceutical information that identifies directly or indirectly the practitioner who ordered the prescription drug; establishing a mechanism for confidentiality protection through an opt-out procedure, comparable to the federal "Do Not Call List," utilizing the licensing and relicensing process for prescribers. The procedures include methods for filing with the Maine Health Data Organization to protect confidentiality of prescriber-identifying information by restricting its use to non-marketing purposes. |
|
MA |
Would require disclosure of certain gifts made by pharmaceutical companies to persons authorized to prescribe or dispense prescription drugs. |
| MA HB 3706 Rep. Reinstein |
Would prohibit all pharmaceutical companies from advertising on any media in the Commonwealth or by any other means. (Filed 1/25/05; date extended to 1/2/07; did not pass committee by end of session, 1/2/07) | |
| MA SB 402 Sen. Montigny |
Would designate an assistant attorney general to coordinate the activities of the office relating to prescription drug pricing and marketing practices within the state. Such activities shall include, but not be limited to, the investigation and prosecution of Medicaid fraud and other fraudulent drug pricing schemes disadvantaging the commonwealth or its citizens, including the filing of false or misleading reimbursement claims or price reports, the investigation and prosecution of unfair and deceptive acts or practices by pharmaceutical manufacturing companies or their agents, including misconduct in the marketing of prescription drugs to prescribers and the exploration of the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the public charities of the commonwealth. Would require doctors and hospitals to report gifts or anything of value given to them by a pharmaceutical company or representative. (Filed 1/26/05; did not pass committee by end of session, 1/2/07) | |
|
MA |
Would urge the United States Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services to recognize the problems caused by direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies. Would also urge the study of effects of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies on the health care system, on the prescriber/patient relationship, on the quality of care received by patients, and on the increasing costs of prescription medications. Would urge to aggressively monitor and regulate direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies, pending Congressional action to limit, ban, or place increased restrictions on such advertising. Would urge to limit or ban direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies, or alternatively, to require that advertisements: (1) remind consumers that prescribers and pharmacists are the best sources of information about appropriate medical treatment and drug therapy; (2) explicitly state the success and failure rates of drugs and compare them with other common products and "no treatment"; (3) mention alternate treatments by name and class; and (4) refer consumers to independent sources of drug information. (Filed 1/26/05; favorable committee report 3/29/06; did not pass by end of session 1/2/07) |
|
Would establish a prescription drug “fair pricing program”, including: 1) a discount drug program for Medicare-eligible residents with incomes over 188 percent of FPL, and other residents with income up to 300 percent of FPL (discounts would be based on manufacturer rebates comparable to Medicaid rebates); 2) creation of a “statewide, uniform preferred list of covered prescription drugs” and a multi-agency bulk purchasing program; 3) consumer safeguards and an appeal process for access to products requiring prior authorization or listed as non-preferred; 4) prohibition of any pharmaceutical manufacturer from giving gifts of any value at any time to physicians or providers; 5) requiring membership in the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices (NLARx). | |
| MN HF 1178 / SF 982 Rep. Thissen |
Would require financial and information disclosure of prescription drug purchasing information and arrangements. |
| MN SF 1999 / HF 1898 Sen. Solon |
Would require a certificate of authority for pharmacy benefits managers; allowing access to certain information; requiring disclosures to certain entities; setting standards and responsibilities of pharmacy benefits managers. (Filed and referred to committee 3/17/05; carried over, but did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
| MS SB 2669 Sen. Williamson |
Would require Rx manufacturers to disclose gifts, fees, payments or other economic benefit over $25 provided to health care providers for promotional and marketing activities. (Filed 1/17/05 and died in committee 2/1/05) | |
|
MT |
Would require a pharmaceutical manufacturer that advertises the drug for sale in the state and receives revenue from those sales to disclose all of the business costs of advertising the drug as a percentage of the total revenue derived from the sale of the drug in the state. Would also provide for enforcement and penalties. (Filed 2/2/05 and sent to committee; missed deadline for revenue bill transmittal 4/4/05; no further action before end of session) | |
|
MT |
Would require Rx manufactures to disclose gifts over $25, not including grants for education, clinical trials, or other bona fide related research work. (Filed 2/5/05; third reading failed 3/9/05; and missed deadline for revenue bill transmittal 4/4/05; no further action before end of session) | |
|
NV |
Would require reporting of certain gifts or other economic benefits provided by wholesalers or manufactures regulated by State Board of Pharmacy. (Filed, passed Assembly 26y-16n, did not pass Senate by deadline 5/28/05) | |
|
NH |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to disclose to the secretary of state the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, fee, payment, subsidy, or other economic benefit provided in connection with detailing, promotional, or other marketing activities by the company, directly or through its pharmaceutical marketers, to any prescriber in the state, or those who dispense or purchase prescription drugs. Disclosure would be made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the secretary of state. (Filed 1/6/05; passed Senate 3/10/05; held in House committee 4/12/05, 6/05; referred for interim study 1/18/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
NH |
Prohibits individual prescription information from being transferred or sold for any commercial purpose except for the limited purpose of reimbursing the pharmacy. Commercial purposes include advertising, marketing, promotion, or any activity that could be used to influence sales or market share of a pharmaceutical product, influence or evaluate the prescribing behavior of an individual health care professional, or evaluate the effectiveness of a professional pharmaceutical detailing sales force. It does not prevent the collection of such data, nor does it prevent its use for reimbursement, research, utilization review, compliance, education, or as provided by law. Commercial use of prescriber identity is also allowed by zip code or medical specialty. Effective date: June 30, 2006. (Filed 1/4/06; passed House 2/22/06; passed Senate 22y-0n, 5/4/06; final passage, enacted 5/24/06; 6/7/06; signed into law by governor as Chapter 328, 6/30/06) |
| NH HB 1542 Rep. DeJoie |
Would enhance consumer protection in the advertisement of prescription drugs and services and enhance the efforts of the Food and Drug Administration in the regulation of drug advertising. (Filed and referred to committee 1/4/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
NH |
Would clarify advertisements for prescription drugs. Would also require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose certain information on gifts to doctors to the secretary of state. (Filed and referred to committee 1/26/05; carried over, but did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
NJ |
Would requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose gifts, fees and other economic benefits provided to health care providers for promotional and marketing purposes to DHSS. (Filed and sent to committee 1/13/04) |
|
NM |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report any gift or item of value given to a doctor over $25. |
|
NY |
Would prohibit pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors from deducting the costs of advertising drugs to consumers from their personal or corporate income taxes. (Filed 1/18/05; carried over from 2005 session; held in committee at end of formal sessions, 7/06) | |
|
NY |
Would require manufacturers and labelers of prescription drugs dispensed in this state which engage in marketing activities in the state to annually report marketing expenses to the department of health; imposes a $10,000 civil fine for failure to report. |
|
Would subject manufacturers of prescription drugs or medical devices who engage in direct-to consumer-advertising to civil liability where adequate warnings are not provided; applies to drugs or devices requiring a health care provider's prescription for dispensing; provides that a jury shall consider, as a question of fact, whether or not the warnings were adequate. | |
|
Would require manufacturers engaging in direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs to clearly state the primary function of the prescription drug in such advertisement; defines prescription drug. (Filed 2/10/05; carried over from 2005 session; held in committee at end of formal sessions, 7/06) | | |
|
NY |
Would require marketing costs for prescription drugs to be reported to the department of health for the purpose of assisting the state in its role as a purchaser of prescription drugs and an administrator of prescription drug programs; authorizes state and municipal agencies to unite as a single-source buying block in order to establish a stronger marketing position regarding the negotiation of prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies; allows certain private entities to participate in the buying block as well. (Filed 2/10/05; carried over from 2005 session; held in committee at end of formal sessions, 7/06) | |
| NY AB 4763 Assm. Burling |
Would require pharmaceutical drug manufacturers and wholesalers to annually report to the New York State Department of Health, for disclosure to the general public, all of its gifts to health care practitioners that prescribe drugs when such gifts have a value of $75 or more. (Filed 2/14/05; carried over from 2005 session; held in committee at end of formal sessions, 7/06) | |
|
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers to annually report to the NY Dept. of Health, for disclosure to the general public, all of its gifts to health care practitioners that prescribe drugs when such gifts have a certain value. (Filed 1/19/05; A 5574 amended & passed Assembly 6/23/06/05; held in Senate committee 7/06) | | |
|
NY |
Would require the Commissioner of Pharmaceuticals to conduct a cost benefit analysis of pharmaceutical advertising and promotional activities associated with the provision of prescription drugs to citizens in the state. (Filed 2/10/05; carried over from 2005 session; held in committee at end of formal sessions, 7/06) | |
| OH HB 112 Rep. Skindell |
Would require manufacturers and labelers of drugs to disclose to the state the value, nature, and purpose of certain gifts, fees, payments, subsidies, and other economic benefits they provide in connection with pharmaceutical detailing, marketing, or promotion. (Filed and referred to committee 3/19/05; carried over from 2005 regular session; no further action before end of formal sessions, 12/06)| |
|
OK |
Would require the exploration of reporting of certain advertising, promotion and marketing costs by pharmaceutical manufacturers. (Filed 2/7/05; Rx affordability sections deleted & did not pass by end of regular session 5/27/05*) | |
|
OK |
Would require the exploration of reporting of certain advertising, promotion and marketing costs by pharmaceutical manufacturers. (Filed 2/7/05 and sent to committee; 2/28/05 original title and text stricken and replaced with different topic) | |
|
OK |
Would create the Oklahoma Pharmaceutical Availability and Affordability Council, empowered to consider strategies to manage the increasing costs of prescription drugs and increase access to prescription drugs for all citizens; assess enactment of fair prescription drug pricing policies; explore discount prices or rebate programs for seniors and persons without prescription drug coverage; consider coordinated PDLs, generic drugs and other approaches; requires disclosure of marketing practices; requires cooperation of all state agencies. |
| OK HB 2914 Rep. D. Morgan |
A manufacturer may not advertise a prescription drug for a clinical trial in a television broadcast, radio broadcast or printed material, unless the manufacturer has disclosed to the State Department of Health the name of the entity that conducted or is conducting the clinical trial, a summary of the purpose of the clinical trial, the dates during which the trial has taken place, information concerning the results of the clinical trial, including potential or actual adverse effects of the drug, and any other information determined by the Department to be relevant. (Filed and referred to committee 2/6/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
OR |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to disclose certain economic benefits provided in conjunction with marketing of prescription drugs, including imposition of civil penalty for failure to disclose. |
|
PA |
Would regulate pharmacies, manufacturers and wholesalers that advertise for sale or sell drugs or devices via the Internet. Provides for powers and duties of the Office of Attorney General. Imposes penalties. (Filed 2/15/05; in committee 9/05) |
|
PA |
Concurrent Resolution would direct the Health Care Cost Containment Council to conduct a study on the impact of prescription drug advertising and promotion on drug prices in Pennsylvania. (Filed and referred to committee 3/1/05; carried over from 2005 regular session; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
Would provide for annual expense reports and for disclosure by pharmaceutical marketers. Imposes penalties. (Filed 2/18/05; carried over from 2005 regular session; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | | |
|
RI |
Would require disclosure from manufacturers of prescription drugs regarding gifts given to persons authorized to prescribe and dispense prescription drugs. This act would take effect on July 1, 2005. Initial disclosure would be made on or before February 1, 2006 for the six (6) month period July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. (Filed 3/2/05; in committee 6/05; no further action before end of session) | |
| RI SB 2944 Sen. Walaska |
Would regulate pharmaceutical companies advertising in the state, and would include disclosure of clinical trials of prescription drugs. (Filed and referred to committee 3/15/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
| SC HB 3711 Rep. Cobb-Hunter |
Would enact the Prescription Drug Discount Card Registration Act; providing for registration with the Department of Consumer Affairs of persons and representatives engaged in the sale, marketing, promotion, advertisement, or distribution of prescription drug discount cards or other purchasing devices. (Filed and referred to committee 3/8/05; re-referred to committee 3/16/06; passed House 4/26/06; passed Senate 6/1/06; House concurred 6/1/06; became law without governor's signature as Act 377, 6/14/06) |
| SD SB 57 Committee on Judiciary |
Would make it a deceptive or unfair trade practice to sell, market, promote, advertise or otherwise distribute any card or other purchasing mechanism or device that is not insurance that purports to offer discounts or access to discounts from pharmacies for prescription drug purchases if: (a) the card or other purchasing mechanism or device does not expressly state in bold and prominent type, prevalently placed, that discounts are not insurance; (b) the discounts are not specifically authorized by a separate contract with each pharmacy listed in conjunction with the card or other purchasing mechanism or device; or (c) the discount or access to discounts offered, or the range of discounts or access to the range of discounts, is misleading, deceptive or fraudulent, regardless of the literal wording. (Filed and referred to committee 1/10/06; passed Senate 31y-3n, 1/24/06; did not pass House as amended 2/23/06) | |
|
Would require the commissioner of commerce and insurance to conduct a study of the effects of prescription drug advertising in Tennessee and to report to the general assembly by January 15, 2006. Filed and referred to committees 2/3/05; carried over, but did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | | |
| TX HB 1676 Rep. Delisi, Sen. Van de Putte |
Requires the TX Attorney General to develop a public awareness campaign to educate consumers about solicitations by email or Internet, including information on distinguishing reputable pharmacies from unlicensed or fraudulent sales. The campaign may use brochures, advertisements and similar outreach and may accept grants and donations to fund the effort. |
|
Would prohibit the advertising of prescription drugs in broadcast media. | |
| Increases "transparency of prescription drug pricing and information" by limiting "fraudulent" advertising of prescription drugs to consumers and health care professionals, requiring notice to clients by pharmacy benefit managers that certain types of contracts are available, establishing an evidence-based education program, providing additional pricing information including "AMP" and "Best Price," to the Medicaid program from drug manufacturers and requiring disclosure of education programs funded by drug manufacturers. Also establishes regulation of PBMs including requiring that all financial and utilization information requested by a health insurer be provided, disclose the costs and financial arrangements with any formulary management, drug substitution including rebate and discount agreements. Such disclosures may be defined as confidential and not subject to court inquiry. (Filed 2/23/07; amended 3/20/07; passed Senate 28y-1n, 4/4/07; passed House 89y-44n, 5/4/07; signed into law by governor as Chapter 80, 6/9/07) NEWS UPDATE: VT: Companies sue state over prescription drug law By Rutland Herald, 8/80/07. Three data-collection companies sued the state of Vermont Wednesday over a provision in the new prescription drug law that would conceal from public view what drugs doctors are prescribing to their patients. | |
|
Would require the disclosure of gifts made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to persons who prescribe prescription drugs. | |
| WA SB 5986 Sen. Kline |
Would revise prescription drug product liability, by stating that manufacturers who advertise directly to consumers remain liable despite warning prescribers of “proper use and attendant dangers.” (Filed 2/18/05; reintroduced 1/9/06; did not pass by end of 2006 regular session 3/8/06) | |
| WI AB 357 same as SB 212 Rep. Sherman |
Would prohibit advertising for prescription drugs to the general public. This would not apply to an advertisement that is broadcast from or is mailed or shipped to the ultimate recipient of the advertisement from outside this state or to advertising sent directly to pharmacists or to practitioners who are authorized to prescribe prescription drugs. (Filed 4/22/05 & 5/24/05; carried over, but did not pass by end of 2006 regular session) | |
|
WY |
Would prohibit payment in exchange for prescribing or recommending prescription and nonprescription medication, medical devices and medical equipment; prohibit receipt of gifts from sellers of prescription and nonprescription medication, medical devices and medical equipment; providing for penalties; providing exceptions; providing for inclusion of price information with free samples; and providing for an effective date. (Filed 1/14/05 did not pass committee 1/21/05) | |
Examples of 2003-2004 DTCA and Related State Bills and Laws- Updated as needed
* = In 25 states Legislative rules may allow for continuation or "carryover" to 2004 session.
|
State/bill/ web link |
Description / excerpts of bill text |
|
AK |
Would allow a pharmacy to advertise that the pharmacy offers a senior prescription drug discount plan under certain conditions. "A pharmacy may participate in the Alaska senior prescription drug discount plan, In order to advertise that the pharmacy is part of the plan, a pharmacy, upon presentation of a valid prescription for a prescribed drug covered under the program and the patient's Medicare card, may not charge a Medicare patient a price for the prescribed drug that exceeds the drug reimbursement rate set by the state for the Medicaid program. |
|
CA |
Would require a pharmaceutical manufacturing company to annually disclose to the board economic benefits the company provides in connection with its marketing activities. The bill would also require the board to report annually to the governor and the legislature regarding these disclosures. |
|
CA |
Would define pharmaceutical marketing practices more specifically between pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and physicians. |
|
Requires pharmaceutical companies to adopt a Comprehensive Compliance Program that is in accordance with a related federal government publication, to include policies on marketing interactions with health care professionals and limits on gifts and incentives to medical or health professionals, including "specific annual dollar limit on gifts, promotional materials, or items or activities that the pharmaceutical company may give or otherwise provide to an individual medical or health care professional." | |
|
CA LAW |
Would memorialize the President and Congress of the United States to recognize the problems caused by direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies and to take specified actions in the regulation of consumer advertising of prescription drugs. |
|
CT |
Would require drug companies and drug company representatives to disclose incentives provided to health care providers. |
|
CT |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to disclose incentives provided to health care providers. |
|
CT |
Would prohibit any drug company from giving gifts to doctors they are seeking to do business with. |
|
CT |
Would establish a board to gather and disseminate information on prescription drug prices, including pharmaceutical company marketing information and assistance programs. |
|
CT |
Would require doctors to disclose gifts, fees, payments, subsidies or other economic benefits received from pharmaceutical companies.| |
|
CT
|
Would require pharmaceutical companies to disclose to the Department of Public Health all advertising and marketing costs associated with each prescription drug sold in the state. |
|
DC |
Enacts the Rx Access Act of 2003, requiring the Dept. of Health to run an AccessRx subsidy program for low-income elderly District residents (eligibility: age 62 or older with household income not more than 200 percent of federal poverty), with enrollees to pay 20 percent of the cost of prescriptions. Also establishes discount prices for qualified uninsured residents (eligibility: any District resident with household income not more than 350 percent of federal poverty, not enrolled in any insurance program) . Requires drug manufacturers to enter into rebate agreements for products sold to publicly funded programs, with public disclosure and possible prior authorization restrictions for products lacking rebate agreements. Includes requirements for disclosure and reporting of Rx marketing costs by manufacturers; also permits negotiations with other states or jurisdictions for bulk purchasing. Also provides that the Department "shall investigate purchases from outside the U.S. Also regulates PBMs, including establishing a legal "fiduciary duty" to any covered entity or customer, transparent business practices, pass through of payments and disclosure of rebates from manufacturers. |
|
HI |
Would establish a prescription drug cost control education program to provide physicians with unbiased information on cost-effective use of prescription drugs; requires prescription drug manufacturers to disclose certain expenditures. |
|
HI |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to disclose to the board of pharmacy the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, payment, or other economic benefit worth $25 or more provided with promotional or other marketing activities to physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, and pharmacists. |
|
HI |
Would establishes ethical marketing requirement for prescription drugs and require manufacturers and labelers who sell prescription drugs in Hawaii to disclose the value, nature, and purpose of gifts and other economic benefits given doctors and other health care providers in connection with detailing, marketing, or promotions. |
|
HI |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to disclose to the board of pharmacy the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, payment, or other economic benefit worth $25 or more provided with promotional or other marketing activities to physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, and pharmacists. |
|
ID |
Would make available data on drug industry marketing and promotional spending in Idaho. Specifically it should provide information of gifts and promotions for doctors and health care providers. Would require that pharmaceutical manufacturers disclose the value, nature and purpose of any gift, fee, subsidy, or other economic benefit provided in connection with detailing, promotional, or other marketing activities by the company through its pharmaceutical marketers to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist, health benefit plan administrator, or anyone who is authorized to prescribe, dispense, or purchase prescription drugs in Idaho. |
|
IL |
Would add pharmaceutical companies to the list of entities prohibited from sharing medical information about a patient. |
|
IL |
Would require every manufacturer and labeler that sells prescription drugs in the State to disclose to the Director the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, fee, payment, subsidy, or other economic benefit provided in connection with detailing or promotional or other marketing activities by the company, directly or through its pharmaceutical marketers, to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist, health benefit plan administrator, or any other person in Illinois authorized to prescribe or dispense prescription drugs. |
|
IL |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose advertising expenditures and promotional costs. The Department of Public Health shall require any pharmaceutical company that provides prescription drugs in Illinois to disclose to the Department, in a manner and fashion designated by the Department by rule, all prescription drug advertising and promotion costs. The Department must then conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine (Faircloth WouldMayo WouldChery WouldWelch Wouldi) the impact of these costs on prescription drug prices and (ii) the impact on Illinois residents of any increase of the prices and costs of prescription drugs that is attributable to the advertising and promotional activities. |
|
IN |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information concerning gifts and payments that are made to a person who prescribes or purchases prescription drugs. Excludes certain gifts and payments from disclosure. |
|
KY |
Would urge the United States Congress, Department of Health and Human Services, and Food and Drug Administration to limit, ban or otherwise impose strict standards on direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs by pharmaceutical companies. |
|
KY |
Non-binding resolution would urge the U.S. Congress and the Dept for Health and Human Services to limit or ban direct to the consumer advertising of prescription drugs. |
|
ME |
Would require that a manufacturer or labeler of prescription drugs dispensed that employs, directs or utilizes marketing representatives in this state shall report the costs of advertising and promotional expenses for prescription drugs in this state as provided in this section. (Filed 1/21/03 and sent to committee, died in committee 4/15/03)| |
|
Would require full disclosure of prescription drug marketing costs. | |
|
ME |
Would prohibit unethical drug marketing practices that are in violation of the drug industry's own code of ethics including practices that induce doctors to violate the American Medical Association's code of ethics. |
|
MD |
Would require specified pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to submit to the Maryland Health Care Commission on a specified form specified information relating to the detailing, promotional, and marketing activities of specified pharmaceutical manufacturing companies; would exempt specified pharmaceutical manufacturing companies from the reporting requirements of the Act; would require the Commission to compile a specified report and keep information about trade secrets confidential. |
|
Would authorize specified health occupation boards to reprimand, place on probation, suspend, or revoke the license of specified health care providers for accepting any gifts greater than $50 from a pharmaceutical manufacturing company or a pharmaceutical marketer; would prohibit specified health care providers from accepting any gifts, other than samples of pharmaceutical products and information, greater than $50 from a pharmaceutical manufacturing company or a pharmaceutical marketer. | |
|
MD |
Would require a pharmaceutical manufacturing company to disclose marketing information; requires the state Pharmacy Board to report annually on the disclosures; requires marketers to register with the Board, pay a fee, and certify adherence to a specified code of ethics before practicing pharmaceutical marketing in the state. |
|
MA |
Would prohibit the advertising of pharmaceuticals in all media forms within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. |
|
MA |
Along with other items, would require registration and reporting of pharmaceutical company marketing activities to doctors. |
|
MA |
A petition to discourage fraudulent marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry. |
|
MA |
Would ban gifts from pharmaceutical manufacturers to doctors. |
|
MA |
Would require all Hammerstron Wouldprescribers receiving gifts or honoraria from people who manufacture, sell, market or distribute prescription drugs or medical devices to publicly disclose such benefits. |
|
MI |
Would require reporting of expenditures by pharmaceutical manufacturers in different categories. Would require that a manufacturer or agent or anyone acting on behalf of a manufacturer or agent could not give a gift to a prescriber. |
|
Prohibits any manufacturer or wholesale drug distributor, or any agent thereof, to offer or give any gift of value to a practitioner over $50. Some exceptions apply. | |
|
Would modify the gift ban for prescription drug practitioners, to cover gifts valued at $20 or more per year, replacing the old $50 standard. Violations would be subject to license revocation and $10,000 fine. | |
|
Would require manufacturers to report all gifts and marketing activities with anyone that is intended to promote the sale of the manufacturer's drugs. (HF 2086: Filed 2/12/04, did not pass by end of regular session 6/04) (SF 1971: Filed 2/12/04 and sent to committee 3/17/04, did not pass by end of regular session 6/04) | |
|
MS |
Would create the Pharmaceutical Marketing Disclosure Law; providing for marketing expense reporting by pharmaceutical manufacturers. representatives |
|
NV |
Would require manufacturer of drugs to file a report with the Board disclosing the value, nature and purpose of any gift, fee, payment, subsidy or other economic benefit that the manufacturer provided, directly or indirectly, to a practitioner who is located within this state or an administrator of a health care facility or plan that conducts business within this state. (this particular provision stricken before final passage) |
|
NJ |
Would prohibit a pharmacist from releasing or disclosing the name, address, or telephone number of any individual for whom a prescription drug is dispensed or his agent for use in commercial solicitation without the prior written or electronic consent of that individual. |
|
NJ |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose gifts, fees and other economic benefits provided to health care providers for promotional and marketing purposes. |
|
NM |
Would require a person who manufacturers prescription drugs for sale or consumption in New Mexico to annually report to the New Mexico health policy commission the following: the value, nature and purpose of any gift, fee, payment, subsidy or other economic benefit incurred in connection with detailing, promoting or other marketing activities by or in behalf of the company, directly or indirectly, to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist, health maintenance organization, managed care organization, health insurance or health benefit plan or any other person authorized to prescribe, dispense or purchase prescription drugs in New Mexico. (this particular provision stricken before final passage) |
|
NM |
Would require a Maziarz WouldVelella WouldBrodsky Wouldcopayment by the manufacturer of any prescribed drug that is advertised directly to consumers. |
|
NY |
Would prohibit manufacturers and distributors of prescription drugs from deducting the costs of advertising such drugs to consumers from their income taxes. |
|
NY |
Would expose manufacturers of prescription drugs of medical devices who engage in direct to consumer advertising to civil liability where adequate warnings are not provided. |
|
Would require pharmaceutical drug manufacturers and wholesalers to annually disclose all gifts valued over $75 to certain health care practitioners. | |
|
NY |
Would require Rx manufacturers which engage in marketing activities in the state to annually report marketing expenses; with a $100,000 civil fine for failure to report. |
|
ND |
Would prohibit, unless a customer provides express authorization under this section, a pharmacist or pharmacy from disclosing individually identifiable health information to a third party for the purpose of marketing a product or service; or b. Participating in for-profit marketing of a product or service to a customer if the marketing to the customer is based upon identifying customer information. |
|
ND |
Would allow a health care provider, a pharmacy, a person conducting health research, a health plan, a health oversight agency, a public health authority, an employer, a health or life insurer, or a school or university to provide marketing services to a pharmaceutical company if that health care entity provides clear and conspicuous notice to the individual involved concerning the health care entity's disclosure practices for all individually identifiable health information collected or created with regard to the individual and obtains the consent of the individual involved to use the information and that consent is manifested by an affirmative act in a written communication that only references and applies to the specific marketing purpose for which the information is to be used. |
|
OH |
Would require pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to disclose advertising and promotional expenses to the State Board of Pharmacy and to require the Board to compile the disclosures into an annual report. |
|
OR |
Would require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to disclose certain economic benefits over $25 provided in conjunction with marketing of prescription drugs. |
|
RI |
Would require drug manufacturers and their marketers to disclose all the gifts that they give to the prescribers or dispensers of prescription drugs. In addition, it would restrict the monetary value of the gifts to $150 per gift and $450 per year to each recipient. |
|
VT |
Would propose to require disclosure of the names of recipients of gifts or other benefits from pharmaceutical marketers. |
|
VT |
Would amend provisions of the Healthy Vermonters pharmacy discount plan; including regulating pharmacy benefit managers; requiring the disclosure of retail prescription drug prices. It would exempt certain mental health drugs from the prior authorization process and assist Medicare beneficiaries with paying drug costs not covered under the federal Medicare drug benefit. |
|
VT |
Would require public disclosure of prescription drug marketing costs by pharmaceutical manufacturers. |
|
VT |
Would prohibit advertising prescription drugs on broadcast media. |
|
VT |
Would establish the small business health care tax incentive program; creates the health care cost containment council. It would require pharmaceutical marketers to make prescription drug price disclosures and require pharmacy benefit managers to provide supplemental financial quotations which identify sources of revenue. |
|
VT
|
FY 2005 Appropriations Act provides: |
|
VT |
Would require "pharmacy benefit managers or health insurers to disclose prescription drug prices to consumers and health care providers"; includes over the counter drugs on the state's preferred drug list (PDL); amends the Healthy Vermonters prescription drug program; requires the licensing of PBM's; provides the office of the attorney general with investigative power under the disclosure laws applicable to pharmaceutical marketers; requires the use of the state's preferred drug list in the state employees' health benefit plan. Also requires a study of "the feasibility of providing discounted prescription drugs to vulnerable patient populations through the use of Section 340B" federal drug discounts. Also would require the state to convene a working group to "develop and implement a plan to include outreach, education, and assistance to minimize confusion and duplication of coverage expected to be caused by the introduction of the new, federally mandated Medicare discount cards", for those who also are eligible for Medicaid, VHAP-Rx, Committee PartPrague WouldSoto Wouldpassed DescriptionClibborn WouldVScript, VScript Expanded, or Healthy Vermonters. Also specifies that the state shall establish a program to describe how residents are able to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, including mail-order options and a state-sponsored website. Would specify that any health insurer "shall cover prescription drugs purchased outside this country on the same terms... as drugs purchased in this country." |
|
WA |
Would require disclosure and reporting of gifts, grants, and gratuities made by pharmaceutical manufacturers, directly or indirectly, to any person or entity authorized to prescribe, dispense, or purchase prescription drugs in Washington. |
|
WV
|
West Virginia Pharmaceutical Availability and Affordability Act 1) establishes a state-sponsored clearinghouse for consumer Rx information; 2) establishes a state-sponsored prescription drug discount card program for residents with annual incomes up to 200 percent of federal poverty guideline. The program may use voluntary manufacturer rebates but may not use formularies or preferred drug lists; 3) establishes a state Council that "shall establish a pricing schedule using or referencing the FSS (Federal Supply Schedule) prices", which requires a future, additional legislative vote of approval or rejection. Also provides that the state shall "explore the feasibility of using or referencing, the federal supply schedule or Canadian pricing. 4) requires the state to "investigate the feasibility of purchasing prescription drugs from Canada," including feasibility of serving as a wholesale distributor of prescription drugs in the state." 5) requires reporting of Rx advertising costs. |
* = Legislative rules may allow for continuation or "carryover" to 2004 session.
Examples of 2001-2002 DTCA State Bills and Laws
During the 2001 and 2002 legislative sessions, several states have attempted to legislate different aspects of DTCA, including advertising, marketing, and doctor detailing and counter-detailing. This chart summarizes some of those bills. Generally, this chart does not include proposals that mention DTCA as a "source for a particular problem" or do not attempt to change DTCA practices. For example, proposals that refer to the addictive nature of an advertised drug or an over-the-counter product are not included in this listing, unless they aim to change the way prescription pharmaceuticals are advertised.
|
State/bill/ web link |
Description / excerpts of bill text |
|
CA |
Would provide that "No deduction shall be allowed under the law for specified expenses paid or incurred by pharmaceutical manufacturers to advertise the sale, use or consumption of pharmaceuticals." |
|
CT |
Would amended the required statutes and require pharmaceutical companies that provide prescription drugs in this state to disclose all prescription drug advertising and promotional costs to the state and to require the state, through an existing state agency or a newly created cost containment council, to conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine the impact of such costs on prescription drug prices and the impact on state residents of the additional prices and costs of prescription drugs attributable to advertising and promotional activities. |