Over the past few years, published reports have revealed the troubling practice of pharmaceutical companies showering doctors and other healthcare officials in lavish gifts, fancy dinners, vacations, and even cash incentives. Critics of these practices allege that it is contributing to the sharp rise in drug costs.

Members will note that since the mid-90s, there has been a dramatic increase in the cost of prescription drugs at both the state and local level. These costs have been passed on to retirees in the form of higher copayment and insurance premium costs.

"It is an interesting coincidence that the price of drugs skyrocketed at the same time that the drug companies stepped-up their marketing efforts," said Association Legislative Liaison Shawn Duhamel. "If it is not alright for lobbyists to treat government officials to gratuities, then the same should apply to the drug industry."

Under Massachusetts state law, government officials (including those elected) cannot accept anything of monetary value from a registered lobbyist. This includes gifts, dinners, trips, and honorariums. The law was created to curtail the influence of so-called special interest groups on government officials.

Moore's bill, S2082, does not ban health care professionals from accepting gifts. What it does is require that doctors and other health care workers, licensed in Massachusetts, disclose anything received from a pharmaceutical company that has a value of fifty dollars or higher. In other words, doctors would be forced to report trips, meals, rounds of golf, and other gifts.

All told, the pharmaceutical industry spent $19 billion in 2001 to advertise and promote their products. Just five years earlier in 1996, the industry spent just $9.1 billion on advertising and promotions. This price includes TV and print ads, marketing, and sample medications.

The industry has over 81,000 sales representatives working across the country, who distributed some $11 billion in free samples to doctor's offices last year. These same sales representatives hand out countless promotional materials emblazoned with the names of the newest drugs.

"The next time you are in the doctor's office take a look around, and you will see a variety of items, on which drug names have been printed. I have seen everything from clocks, to prescription pads, pens, cups, and posters with the names of popular drugs," comments Association Insurance Coordinator Cheryl Stillman. "The drugs that are advertised tend to be the newest and most expensive products these companies make. If it is causing the prices to go up then it is not right."

In early June, Vermont passed a similar law to that proposed in Massachusetts. It requires drug companies to report the gifts they provide to doctors in Vermont.

Vermont Governor Howard Dean, himself a physician, signed the law on June 12. He joined the ranks of a growing group of doctors and medical providers who have taken issue with the market practices of drug companies.

Another practice of the pharmaceutical companies, that is gaining increased criticism, is the alleged manipulation of drug patents. When a new drug is brought to market, the company which owns it holds a patent that prohibits other companies from making the drug for a set number of years. Once the patent expires, other companies are free to produce exact replicas of the name brand drug, known as generics.

More and more often the drug companies will alter a portion of the drug as the patent expires, thus qualifying for a patent extension. In most cases the change made, to justify the patent extension, does not improve upon the drug itself. Once a patent is extended, that company retains the exclusive right to manufacture the drug.

The FDA has reported that 80% of all new drugs have "no significant improvement" over existing drugs used to treat the same illness or condition. However, this does not stop the drug companies from aggressively advertising and marketing their newest products.

According to published reports, the prescription drug industry (the most profitable in the country) had $154 billion of total sales in 2001. Estimates for 2002 sight a 20% increase in drug costs, which will translate into an additional $25-30 billion in sales.

"We do not want to see anyone kept from cutting-edge drugs that will save their life. However, it appears that there may be games being played that are artificially driving up costs," said Association President Ralph White. "With many retirees finding it increasingly difficult to afford insurance and the copayments, something has got to give.

"There was a point in time when you could blindly trust that your doctor was only looking out for your best interests. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Not to say that all or even most doctors are too cozy with the drug companies. However, all of the evidence that we have seen speaks to the fact that something is not right. Disclosing these relationships will allow retirees to fully understand what may be going on behind the scenes that could impact their medical care."