A Vermont federal district court gave good news to advocates of a VT law to ban the use of prescriber information for marketing by the drug industry. Our friends at the Prescription Project posted the following blog [available at http://blog.prescriptionproject.org/?p=626] on this victory:

Vermont District Court upholds data-mining law

[On Thursday, April 23, 2009] the Vermont District Court upheld a 2007 law banning the use of prescriber-identifiable information to market prescription drugs. In his opinion, Judge J. Garvan Murtha affirmed the Vermont Legislature’s findings that the use of data-mining as a pharmaceutical sales tactic promotes the overuse of more expensive, less-tested drugs, and that banning the practice for marketing purposes protects public health and contains costs.  Importantly, the decision explicitly deferred to the legislature to decide how to rein in rising health care costs.

The Court’s decision supports a unanimous November 2008 ruling by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a similar law in New Hampshire that bans the use of prescriber-identifiable information for marketing purposes, and is a strong signal for other states that are currently considering data-mining restriction laws, including Connecticut and Massachusetts.

A Healthy Blog, part of the coalition supporting the Massachusetts data-mining bill, found inspiration in Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell’s response to the decision: “It is a testament to our Legislature and to the courage of this small state that we continue to lead the way on important public health issues,” he said.

Here’s the full decision [at http://www.prescriptionproject.org/tools/solutions_resources/files/0040.pdf ].

And to commemorate the World Malaria Day this past Saturday, we bring you a post by Sonia Shah, a guest blogger on international human rights and drug policy on the PAL blog.  She posted this interesting history of the role of malaria in the growth of the US nation, a reminder of how much we have in common with the developing nations struggling with this contintuing health threat.  See it at http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3843

Attention: Consumers of doctor-administered drugs: 

The court in the AWP litigation has extended the deadline to file consumer claims concerning these 200 prescription drugs (linked here) that were usually, but not always, administered in a doctor’s office.   

These drugs were usually, but not always, treatments for different types of cancer, HIV, allergies, infections, inflammation, pain, gastrointestinal problems and lung and blood issues. A full list of these 200 prescription drugs, which were usually given as an injection or an IV, is at http://awptrack2settlement.com/pdfs/Class_A_%20and_Class_B_Drug_List.pdf.
 
You may file a claim . . . 
If you made a percentage co-payment:

●  Under Medicare Part B for any of these 200 prescription drugs from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 2005,

and/or 

●  Through a private health insurance plan for any of these 200 prescription drugs from January 1 1991 through March 1, 2008.

In addition, a spouse or legal representative of the estate of a deceased patient who made such a percent co-payment may file a claim.
 
A percentage co-payment is a co-payment that varies, depending on the cost of the drug.  You may not file a claim if you made only flat co-payments, or if you had not obligation to make a co-payment. A flat co-payment is one that is the same cost, usually $5 or $10 dollars, no matter how expensive the drug is to your insurance. 
 
If you made a percentage co-payment, you must ACT NOW TO FILE A CLAIM!

Consumers covered under Medicare Part B:
If you were covered by Medicare part B, then you should have received a yellow postcard in the mail, advising you of your rights to participate in the settlement. If you are covered by Medicare Part B, but did not receive such a post card, you may see more information at http://www.awptrack2settlement.com/consumerclass1.htm and you should contact the claims administrator at 1-877-465-8136 or info@awptrack2settlement.com. Additional information is available at http://awptrack2settlement.com/consumerclass3.htm. The court has only extended the deadline for the filing of claims until May 1, 2009, so you need to call right away.

Consumers not covered under Medicare Part B:
If you are not covered under Medicare Part B, and you paid a percentage co-payment for any of these 200 drugs between January 1, 1991 and March 1, 2008, the court has extended the deadline for the filing of consumers claims until May 1, 2009 so you need to file your claim soon.  The claim form is available online at http://www.awptrack2settlement.com/pdfs/RevdClass3Claimform.pdf. If you have any questions, you may contact the claims administrator at 1-877-465-8136 or info@awptrack2settlement.com. Additional information is available at http://www.awptrack2settlement.com/consumerclass1.htm. The court has only extended the deadline for claims to be postmarked until May 1, 2009, so you need to call right away. 

 
How Much Can I Get Back?
Approximately $21.8 million will be paid to consumers who file valid claims.

●  You can get up to $35 simply by certifying you paid percentage co-payments,

or

●  If you can estimate what you paid and show that you made percentage co-payments through receipts or bills, you can receive more money. For some of the drugs, you can get three times the percentage co-payment.

Background information on the lawsuit:
This lawsuit is not about whether these drugs are safe or effective. This lawsuit is about the amount that you were charged for the drugs. The class action claims that consumers paid too much for the drugs.
 
This settlement arises out of the class action lawsuit called In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation (01-cv-12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456, D. Ma). This lawsuit alleged that the eleven defendant drug companies reported fraudulent reimbursement prices (called an “Average Wholesale Price” or “AWP”) for these 200 drugs. When the reimbursement price paid by Medicare Part B or a private insurer is much higher than the actual cost paid by a doctor, then the drug company creates an incentive for the doctor to use one drug over another. This is called “marketing the spread.” The lawsuit alleged that these drug manufacturers did “market the spread” for these 200 prescription drugs (linked here). This cost consumers, insurers, and Medicare millions of dollars in excess fees.
 
To settle the lawsuit, the 11 defendant pharmaceutical drug manufacturers in the lawsuit had agreed to pay $125 million. Consumers who were harmed by larger co-payments were awarded 17.5% of the settlement. Private insurance companies that paid higher costs for the drugs were awarded 82.5% of the settlement. The defendants in this settlement are Abbott Laboratories, Amgen Inc., Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Baxter Healthcare Corp., Baxter International Inc., Bayer Corporation, Dey, Inc., Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc., Fujisawa USA, Inc., Immunex Corporation, Pharmacia Corporation, Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC (f/k/a Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc.), Sicor, Inc., Gensia, Inc., Gensia Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and ZLB Behring, L.L.C.
 
Again, details about the settlement, claim forms, and information on how to file a claim can be found at http://awptrack2settlement.com/index.htm or by calling 877-465-8136. 

PLEASE FORWARD
If you are part of patient support groups, please forward this link or message to others who may be eligible to participate in this settlement under the new May 1, 2009 deadline!