European Commission Calls for More Healthcare Cowbell

Too slowly for some, too swiftly for others, and without any apparent interest by most, the European Commission is moving forwards in its efforts to lubricate the anemic channels through which pharmaceutical companies can communicate with patients (otherwise know as “people”).

According to an article in Europolitics, “The European Commission is standing firm on its objective of authorising pharmaceutical laboratories to communicate directly with patients on the benefits and risks of their prescription products.

The full Europolitics article follows – but here are some tidbits to whet your appetite:

 “The idea is also to respond to the expanding use of communication tools - in particular the internet - and patients' growing responsibility for their treatment.”

 Wow.  Reality.  What a concept!

 “While the Commission has always denied wanting to authorise advertising for prescription drugs, it was expected to make a clear distinction between non-professional information' and advertising' if the industry is allowed to communicate directly with patients.”

But:

“The EU executive took a step backwards, however, on communication channels: exit radio and TV broadcasting, which "does not protect patients against unsolicited information".

However:

“… the Commission intends to maintain the print media in its proposal. It nevertheless puts emphasis on the internet, saying it offers "almost unlimited access to information without taking account of national borders."

So, there can be advertising , but not advertising.

And for all you DDMAC fans out there:

“The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), based in London, would also play a role: laboratories would have to notify their information prior to publication and the EMEA would have 60 days to express any compliance objections, after which the information would be published.”

And to make things even more confusing:

“For the monitoring of information, the Commission is expected to propose an ex-post mechanism (after dissemination of information to patients). The member states will define the rules. They could nevertheless set up prior monitoring - and clearance by the competent authorities - for information for which it is hard to make a distinction between non-promotional information' and advertising'.”

Note:  This is the difference between federation and confederation.  It is also a lesson in why concepts like … preemption ... are so important. But I digress.

Here is the compete article from Europolitics:

Prescription Drugs: Pharmaceutical Firms Authorised to Inform Patients

The European Commission is standing firm on its objective of authorising pharmaceutical laboratories to communicate directly with patients on the benefits and risks of their prescription products. In a draft directive due out in late October(1), the EU executive is expected to stand up to the criticisms of health care professionals, sickness insurance bodies and several patient and consumer organisations, which accuse it of trying to do away with the European ban on advertising for prescription drugs.

With this proposal (subject to co-decision), of which Europolitics obtained a copy, the Commission intends to iron out the differences between national laws, which range from allowing information that is strictly supervised by drug regulatory authorities, to public private partnerships between health care professionals, patient associations and industry.

QUALITY CRITERIA

While the Commission has always denied wanting to authorise advertising for prescription drugs, it was expected to make a clear distinction between non-professional information' and advertising' if the industry is allowed to communicate directly with patients. Its answer is that "the content of authorised information must be defined". According to the proposal, industry would be authorised to communicate on the instructions for drug use, prices, changes in packaging, warnings on side effects, the absence of scientific studies and prevention and treatment support measures. Information on human health and illnesses as such is not concerned.

Quality criteria are established: the information must be objective and non-biased, take patients' needs and expectations into account, be based on factual and verifiable data (declaration on the extent of evidence), up-to-date, reliable, factually accurate and not misleading, comprehensible to patients and the general public, stem from a clearly identifiable source and compatible with the summary of product characteristics and patient information brochures as approved by the competent authorities. Comparisons between drugs are prohibited.

INTERNET AND PRINT MEDIA

The EU executive took a step backwards, however, on communication channels: exit radio and TV broadcasting, which "does not protect patients against unsolicited information". This eventuality, discussed by the Commission in its public consultation documents, was rejected by the member states, even the most liberal stakes like the

UK, but also by laboratories. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), for example, had informed the Commission that its members did not wish to engage in direct advertising as in the United States and that reflection on passive information via TV, radio and the print media tied into that. However, the Commission intends to maintain the print media in its proposal. It nevertheless puts emphasis on the internet, saying it offers "almost unlimited access to information without taking account of national borders". And it adds that "specific rules on site surveillance should be put in place to take account of the cross-border nature of the information provided on internet and to allow cooperation between member states". Patients could, for example, write to industry in any of the EU's 23 official languages to request information in that language.

EX-POST MONITORING

For the monitoring of information, the Commission is expected to propose an ex-post mechanism (after dissemination of information to patients). The member states will define the rules. They could nevertheless set up prior monitoring - and clearance by the competent authorities - for information for which it is hard to make a distinction between non-promotional information' and advertising'. The national authorities will have to ensure that information is accessible to people with disabilities, unless this requires too much paperwork in laboratories. Such a regulated mechanism nevertheless does not rule out voluntary regulation by industry or co-regulation by industry and the public authorities. At a debate in the Health Council, on 10 June in

Luxembourg, most of the member states expressed a preference for prior monitoring of information. Sweden noted, however, that possibilities for ex-post monitoring could lower the administrative costs involved (see Europolitics 3548).

It will also be for the member states to ensure that companies are fined or taken to court for "repeated and serious cases of non-compliance" with the new rules. The name of the company would be made public. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), based in

London, would also play a role: laboratories would have to notify their information prior to publication and the EMEA would have 60 days to express any compliance objections, after which the information would be published.

The Commission also gives itself the possibility to revise the directive five years after its entry into force. The proposal concerns only prescription drugs, since existing EU rules authorise advertising by laboratories for over-the-counter drugs, under certain conditions.