Ensure Drug Quality and Safety – “Academic Detailing”

Doctors targeted by marketing schemes tend to prescribe more, newer, and pricier drugs regardless of the drug's efficacy compared to less expensive medications - sometimes with deadly consequences. As The Prescription Project reports, Merck spent $209 million marketing the painkiller Vioxx, driving up utilization before the medical community had a full understanding of the drug's side effects. The premature and rapid adoption of Vioxx resulted in up to 139,000 heart attacks, 40% of which were fatal.

States can establish "Academic Detailing" programs to save lives and reduce costs. Academic detailing programs send highly-educated medical professionals to doctors' offices with scientific and unbiased information about which drugs are right for a given situation, countering the industry's direct-to-physician marketing and sales. Studies have found that for every dollar spent on "academic detailing," two dollars are saved.

Pennsylvania's Independent Drug Information Service program is a partnership between the state and Harvard Medical School. Elsewhere, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are creating a multi-state academic detailing collaborative with support from Prescription Policy Choices. In addition to Vermont's existing program, Maine enacted Public Law Chapter 327 in 2007 and New Hampshire enacted HB 1513 in 2008 creating academic detailing programs. Mississippi also established a program for physicians participating in Medicaid.

Resources:

The Prescription Project - Academic Detailing: Evidence-Based Prescribing Information
The Prescription Project - Cost-Effectiveness of Prescriber Education (Academic Detailing) Programs

Prescription Drug Marketing and Safety Policy Guide

Fact Sheets

"Prescriber Education Service" - Ensure Safety and Accuracy in Prescribing Decisions: Key Facts, Polling, Best Practices

Resource Organizations

From the Dispatch

While DC Delays, States Move Forward on Health Care Reforms

Jan 28, 2010

As Congress delays moving forward on the passage of comprehensive health care reform, progressive state leaders from across the country have been demanding passage of reform as critical for families across the nation. But that doesn't mean they are waiting; state leaders are moving forward, laying the groundwork for how national changes should be implemented, and creating the momentum for other meaningful health care reforms in their states.
Read More
Rx Reforms to Address Budget Deficits and Ensure Quality of Medications

Nov 23, 2009

As part of our Shared Multi-State Agenda, the Progressive States Network is working with legislators, advocates and leading experts to promote Rx reforms in 2010 that will reduce health care costs for consumers, businesses, and state and local governments, and will help ensure access to safe and effective medications. Through coordinated, strategic support, PSN and our allies will be working to introduce and advance Rx reforms that will help address state budget deficits and improve access to quality medications in as many states possible; providing model legislation, policy analysis, messaging and more - all of which has been gathered and will be constantly updated on our Prescription Drug Reform Shared Agenda web page.
Read More
The Supreme Court and the States 2008-2009: Trend Defending State Authority Emerges this Term

Jul 14, 2009

Whether out of circumstance or an emerging trend, where state authority was at issue, this term the U.S. Supreme Court overwhelmingly deferred to state decision makers-- a significant reveral from last year.
Read More
States' Victory Against Preemption - FDA Approval Does not Block State Tort Claims Against Drug Makers

Mar 05, 2009

In a much anticipated decision, Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision upheld states' right to hold the drug industry accountable for not adequately warning consumers and prescribers of a drug's impact. The pharmaceutical industry had argued that Federal Drug Administration approval of a drug's warning label pre-empts state claims of injury based on the failure by a company to warn of additional dangers not covered by the FDA-approved label. The court rejected this argument.
Read More

You are viewing a resource page for