Pharmaceutical companies should support the AMA and comply with PDRP. If the program fails, the likely result is state legislation
that almost certainly will prove more restrictive than PDRP. Clearly, no one wants this outcome. Beyond California, New Hampshire,
West Virginia, Arizona, and Hawaii also have recently proposed legislation. At press time, the New Hampshire bill already
had passed the House and was pending in the Senate. For now, the other state legislatures are standing down to give PDRP a
The AMA has stated that it will investigate all violations aggressively. If an organization is found in breach of PDRP, the
ultimate penalty is AMA license revocation, which may lead to the loss of access to all physician prescription data.
Anyone who wonders what it would be like to operate without physician prescription data might reflect on how business was
done in 1989, before physician-level prescribing data was available. Today it would be worse. These days, the prescription
influence chain has become much more difficult to understand without access to this type of information.
Playing By the Rules
With the physician sign-up already underway, and the program going into effect on July 1, pharmaceutical companies must be
prepared to fully embrace PDRP by quickly establishing and implementing a compliance strategy. PDRP offers the healthcare
industry an excellent alternative to government legislation regarding the use of physician prescribing data.
Companies should expect to pay a premium for solutions that are designed optimally for PDRP compliance. To rationalize the
cost, the pharmaceutical industry should measure it against the potential revenue losses caused by non-compliance.
Jim Alonso is chairman and chief executive officer at ASI Business Solutions, Inc. David Menzies is ASI's vice president, global technology services.