This article about lobbying over privacy in electronic medical records noted the sum of campaign contributions from the drug industry and health professionals to Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who sponsored an amendment to legislation on the issue in the House, but did not do the same for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who sponsored an amendment in the Senate. Since 2000, Harkin has received $1 million in donations from the drug industry and $1.8 million from health professionals, according to OpenSecrets.org. Harkin, like Blunt, said through a spokesman that the donations had no influence on his position.
| Page 2 of 2 < |
Lobbying War Ensues Over Digital Health Data
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
|
Consumer advocates assert that the health industry is already reaping billions by gathering, mining and marketing personal health data and is mainly worried that the privacy provisions would threaten that income stream.
"When a patient walks in the door of a hospital or a pharmacy, that hospital or pharmacy sees not just one dollar sign, but two," said Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The first dollar is what they earn from treating the patient. The second is the ability to sell the information about the patient." The risk, he said, is that Americans could face difficulties getting health insurance or a job because of the information available in "for sale" medical records. Industry officials say that they fully comply with federal privacy regulations, which they contend are adequate.
Sparapani said that in the 16 years he has worked on the Hill, he has never seen lines of lobbyists for subcommittee hearings -- let alone votes -- like those on this issue. "There's so much money invested in this and so many corporate entities that are touched by this legislation," he said, "that the lines reminded me of those of the inauguration."
One provision that has generated a great deal of lobbying on both sides would, for instance, bar a drug company from paying a pharmacy to send marketing letters to patients unless the patient consents. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores, which represents CVS Pharmacies and Walgreen's, among others, and which doubled its lobbying spending in 2008 to $1.4 million, opposed the provision. It sent a letter to lawmakers arguing that the restriction might block pharmacists from sending refill reminders.
In the House, the pharmacists found a receptive ear in former House minority whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who sponsored an amendment last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee ensuring that "nothing" in the legislation would "prevent a pharmacist from collecting and sharing information with patients."
But when Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee saw the language, they became concerned it would maintain a loophole that allows drug companies to pay pharmacists to send letters -- at up to $4.50 per letter -- pitching more expensive alternative drugs to their customers. They revised the language to close the loophole. Blunt tried once more to amend the bill to the pharmacists' liking but failed.
Blunt has taken $417,000 from the pharmaceutical industry and $718,000 from health professionals since 2000, according to OpenSecrets.org, but his spokesman, Nick Simpson, said the donations in no way influenced the congressman's position on the bill. Blunt wants pharmacists to be able to alert patients to less expensive, but equally effective generic drugs, Simpson said.
The Senate added an amendment to its bill by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) that would allow pharmacists to send letters to patients as long as they are for a health-care item or service that has previously been prescribed.The pharmaceutical industry has given Harkin $1 million in donations since 2000, while health professionals provided $1.8 million over the same time, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Both bills still include some measures that industry opposes, such as one allowing state attorneys general to enforce federal privacy rules. "We have no problem with enforcement of regulation," said Karen M. Ignani, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, who sent a letter outlining the industry's concerns to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "The question is, 'Do you enforce it in 50 different ways?' "
But consumer advocates say that without strong privacy safeguards, the electronic medical records effort will fail. "The only activities hindered . . . in the House bill are the data thefts and sales by the health data mining industries," said Deborah Peel, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, a grass-roots coalition. "The protections do not hamper legitimate uses of personal health data."
A Senate vote is scheduled for today.
Staff researcher Robert E. Thomason contributed to this report.
