{
  "id": "RL34094",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34094",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 348356,
      "date": "2007-07-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:00:01.317029",
      "title": "Requiring Disclosure of Gifts and Payments to Physicians: State Efforts and a Legal Analysis of Potential Federal Action",
      "summary": "A recent Senate hearing, state efforts, and media attention have brought the issue of pharmaceutical companies\u2019 gifts and payments to physicians into focus. Pharmaceutical companies sometimes give gifts or make payments to doctors as part of their marketing efforts. Senator Herb Kohl has expressed interest in introducing a federal bill that would mandate disclosure of such gifts and payments. This report briefly outlines the arguments for and against a federal disclosure measure. Next, it describes the state disclosure laws already in effect. Finally, it analyzes potential legal hurdles to a federal disclosure requirement.\nProponents of disclosure express concern that gifts and payments from pharmaceutical companies increase prescription drug costs and create incentives for physicians that obscure patients\u2019 best interests; they argue that disclosure would alleviate those problems by providing transparency. Opponents of disclosure emphasize the educational benefits that marketing provides; in addition, they argue that disclosure is unnecessary because existing professional codes, such as American Medical Association guidelines, discourage pharmaceutical representatives and physicians from engaging in unethical behavior.\nSeveral states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose gifts and payments made to physicians. The state laws require disclosure to the states of such gifts and payments on an annual basis. Certain categories of gifts and payments are exempted from reporting requirements under most of the state laws. For example, nearly all of the laws exempt product samples intended for free distribution to patients and gifts worth less than a certain amount. The state laws also provide for dissemination to the public or state legislatures of information disclosed pursuant to the laws.\nIf a federal disclosure requirement was enacted and subsequently challenged, it appears likely to survive judicial scrutiny on First Amendment grounds. If pharmaceutical companies challenged a federal disclosure measure, they would likely argue that it violates their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech or association. However, governmental interests, for example in transparency or patient protection, might be sufficient to survive the applicable tests under compelled speech, restricted speech, and private association precedents.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34094",
          "sha1": "524b170125e94a2f84a1eb5b5e6ddbf43eda480f",
          "filename": "files/20070718_RL34094_524b170125e94a2f84a1eb5b5e6ddbf43eda480f.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34094",
          "sha1": "11683b12a5e4a8bb9735f892a5788546db50bf47",
          "filename": "files/20070718_RL34094_11683b12a5e4a8bb9735f892a5788546db50bf47.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}