You asked if Connecticut has passed legislation on a variety of issues related to pharmaceutical company business practices and disclosure.

REQUIRE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF CLINICAL TRIALS RESULTS

Connecticut does not require public disclosure of clinical trial results, but legislation was considered during the 2005 session. While a number of bills on the topic were introduced, only SB 1286 (attached) received a public hearing. The bill prohibited a health care provider or public or private higher education institution from participating in a clinical trial unless the drug manufacturer and the person responsible for the clinical trial agreed to (1) register the clinical trial in advance with the National Institutes of Health on-line clinical database and (2) fully and publicly disclose the results of the trial. The bill died in committee. OLR Report 2005-R-0217 provides more information on the clinical trials issue.

REQUIRE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO DISCLOSE SPENDING ON PHYSICIANS CONCERNING PROMOTION OF THEIR DRUGS

In 2003, the General Assembly considered, but did not enact, SB 1118, “An Act Concerning Physician Reporting of Gifts From Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Companies” (attached). The bill would have required physicians and other health care providers to report twice yearly to the Department of Public Health on the gifts, fees, and other benefits they received from drug manufacturers and their marketers. It exempted certain types of gifts and benefits. The bill imposed penalties on those providers failing to report or otherwise violating the bill's requirements. The bill was favorably reported by the Public Health Committee, but died in the Judiciary Committee.

In 2005, the Legislature considered, but did not pass, another relevant bill. HB 6623, “An Act Establishing a Prescription Drug Academic Detailing Program,” would have required the UConn Health Center to establish a pilot program to allow appropriately qualified and trained academic detailers (clinical educators such as registered pharmacists) to visit licensed physicians in their offices to provide unbiased, evidence-based information on the diagnosis and treatment of selected illnesses, including information concerning the use of pharmaceuticals. The bill was favorably reported by the Public Health Committee, but it died in the Appropriations Committee. (A copy of the bill is attached. )

PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS (PBMS) AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

The state has a number of contracts with PBMs (see OLR Report 2003-R-0503). The 2004 legislature considered SB 111, “An Act Concerning Pharmacy Benefit Management Plans. ” This bill required the public health and consumer protection commissioners to study PBM plans to determine (1) if further regulation of the plans was needed and (2) if such regulation should limit any compensation or benefit the plans receive from customers, suppliers, or drug manufacturers. The bill passed the Senate, but died in the House (see attached copy).

BULK PURCHASING OF DRUGS

SB 46 of the 2005 session addressed an interagency prescription drug bulk purchasing plan. It would have required the public health and social services commissioners and the state comptroller to develop a plan for implementing a prescription drug bulk purchasing program for the state. The plan would address aggregating or negotiating pharmaceutical purchasing for Medicaid, State-Administered General Assistance, ConnPACE, the Department of Correction, and persons insured under the state and municipal employee plans. The bulk purchasing plan would have to follow the Department of Social Services' preferred drug list. This bill passed the Senate but not the House.

A recent OLR Report (2005-R-0724) examines prescription drug bulk purchasing activities in other states.

JK: dw