Subscribe   RSS Contact Us

AMA Calls for DTC Advertising Ban

Nov. 17, 2015 — The American Medical Association (AMA) announced today that it would support an advertising ban on direct-to-consumer ... read more

Rocky Political Road Ahead for Pharma Industry

Nov. 16, 2015 – From tax inversions to the proposal to reduce ad tax deductions for marketing to being named ... read more

PhRMA Puts Drug Costs in Perspective as Pricing Scrutiny Increases

Nov. 9, 2015 – Congress, federal agencies and the media continue to turn up the heat on their examination of ... read more

Kaiser Poll: DTC Ads Have High Profile, But Mixed Reviews

Oct. 30, 2015 – The drug industry may have additional work to do to improve the public’s perception of its ... read more

CHC DC Meeting: Prescription Drugs Are Cost Savers, Not Cost Drivers

Oct. 26, 2015 – There is no question that prescription drugs have a cost to patients and payers, but that ... read more

FDA Study of DTC Ads Reaches Critical Mass

Oct. 20, 2015 – The FDA’s announcement last week that it was accepting comments on two new studies of direct-to-consumer ... read more

Senate Bill Would Loop Nurse Practitioners and PAs into Sunshine Reporting

Oct. 12, 2015 – A bill introduced in the Senate last week by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Richard ... read more

Which Standard of Truth Will Be Used To Evaluate Non-misleading Ad Claims?

Oct. 5, 2015 – Following numerous First Amendment court cases about promotional speech decided in favor of pharmaceutical companies, it ... read more

Prescription Drug Marketing Targeted by Hillary Clinton

Sept. 24, 2015 – Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton just announced that she would “demand a stop to excessive profiteering and ... read more

CMPI: Value of Prescription Drugs Is Underestimated

Sept. 21, 2015 – Despite widespread reports about the soaring prices of prescription drugs and calls by the federal government ... read more

Pacira Files Complaint Calling FDA Marketing Restrictions Unconstitutional

Sept. 10, 2015 – On the heels of last month’s ruling in Amarin v. FDA, which held that the FDA ... read more

Comment Period for Brief Summary Revised Guidance Extended to Oct. 5 Under Second Revision

Sept. 8, 2015 – To incorporate animal prescription drugs into its revised draft guidance on Brief Summary and Adequate Directions ... read more

Pitts Calls Higher Drug Approval Rate a Sign of Regulatory Progress

Aug. 24, 2015 – Although some may call the FDA to task for approving more new drugs than they have ... read more

CHC and CCC Launching Regulatory Compliance University for Agencies, Publishers

Aug. 19, 2015 – The Coalition for Healthcare Communication (CHC) is partnering with the Center for Communication Compliance (CCC) to ... read more

Kamp on Presidential Politics: They Matter to Medical Marketers

Aug. 17, 2015 – In an Aug. 11 column posted on the PharmaLive website, Coalition for Healthcare Communication Executive Director ... read more

Amarin Federal Court Decision: FDA Off-Label Marketing Rules Violate the First Amendment By John Kamp

Aug. 10, 2015 – Late last week the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Amarin ... read more

FDA Will Study How Market Claims, Efficacy Info Affect Consumers in DTC Drug Print Ads

July 29, 2015 – The FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) recently announced that it plans to conduct a ... read more

Congressional Briefing: Medical Information Communication Is Important Patient Issue

July 28, 2015 – Physicians and their patients need access to truthful and non-misleading data about available treatments, including off-label ... read more

CME Update: CMS Revises Guidance and Industry Ups Spending

July 20, 2015 – Two recent developments in the continuing medical education (CME) arena – a revision to CME guidance ... read more

Kamp: 21st Century Cures Act and Amarin Case Developments Are Signs of Progress

July 13, 2015 –Two events last week – the House approval of the 21st Century Cures legislation and arguments in ... read more

House Approves 21st Century Cures Act, Bill Now Heads to the Senate

July 10, 2015 — The House of Representatives today passed H.R. 6, also known as the 21st Century Cures Act, ... read more

21st Century Cures Legislation Garners House Majority Support

July 1, 2015 – The 21st Century Cures Act, which was unanimously approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee ... read more

Google SEM Changes Affect Drug Black Box Reminder-like, Redirecting Ads

June 29, 2015 – Two changes to search engine marketing (SEM) recently announced by Google could soon alter how pharmaceutical ... read more

Physicians Say CHC-backed H.R. 293 Would Remedy “Burdensome” Sunshine Act Reporting

June 15, 2015 – More than 100 physician organizations have written to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) to express their strong ... read more

Author of “Pharmaphobia” Says Conflict-of-interest Regulations Are Slowing Medical Progress

June 8, 2015 – In his new book, “Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation,” Tom ... read more

Revised Guidance on Use of Brief Summary in Print DTC Ads: Full PI Is Not Needed or “Recommended”

Feb. 9, 2015 – In a revised draft guidance document released Feb. 6, the FDA is updating a 2004 version ... read more

Previous Next

ISMPP Offers Guidance on Value of Publication Support in Sunshine Act “Suggestions Document”

Aug. 19, 2013 – Companies struggling to define and place a value on the publication support they provide to physicians authoring medical publication submissions under the Sunshine Act will find some reasonable advice in a “suggestions document” recently published by the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP).

“Our action here was to understand and interpret this provision of the final rule and respond to questions from our members about it,” said Bob Norris, ISMPP founding member and past president, and founder of CHC Group, who served on the ISMPP Task Force that authored the document. “There is so little direct guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on how to define transfers of value for this practice, so we wanted to step in to fill that gap,” he said.

The ISMPP Task Force document – which is designed to help entities determine the value of publication support that is transferred and how to apportion that value among covered recipients (CRs) – is based on a review of the Physician Payment Transparency Program final rule, internal discussions, and meetings with CMS representatives and stakeholders in the medical publications space.

Norris told the Coalition for Healthcare Communication that informal meetings with CMS were “very constructive in determining the parameters” of the guidance, but that CMS’ direct responses to questions on this issue sent to the agency through its Web site “will be the ultimate answer.”

Parsing the final rule’s mandate that transfers of value (TOV) made by applicable manufacturers (AMs) to CRs be reported under the Sunshine Act, the ISMPP Task Force considers the TOV to be “any support provided to CR authors for publication that will be submitted, or is intended to be submitted, to a scientific or medical journal, or provided to authors/speakers for submission to or presentation at a professional congress.”

What to Report

According to the Task Force, AMs should consider the following activities when determining what comprises publication support:  

  • Medical writing and editing under the direction of the author(s)
  • Statistical support performed specifically for the publication
  • Literature searches and provision of references
  • Graphic support
  • Securing permissions/permission fees
  • Journal submission
  • Submission and publication fees (includes fees associated with open-access journals)
  • Direct costs for travel, meals, and other expenses associated with performance of work associated with publications (e.g., congress attendance; publication steering committee).

ISMPP also suggests that publication support activities “are reportable regardless of whether they are included in or outside of a research contract,” although they may be reported using different templates (General Payments, Physician Ownership or Research Payments).

Allocating and Assigning Value

For many manufacturers, the trickiest reporting element is how to place a value on the publication support they provide and allocate it among authors. Norris noted that this was the “diciest question” the ISMPP Task Force had to tackle, and that although the group “tried to come up with a definitive ‘this is how you do it’ approach,” it saw the need for several options.

The ISMPP Task Force states in the document that manufacturers should “individually determine the method for allocating specific TOV to each CR who was provided publication support.” The defining question here, according to the ISMPP, is: “What is the value of specific tasks that the authors would have had to perform or secure for themselves if the AM had not provided publication support?”

To help answer that question, the Task Force provides sorted lists of publication support activities that fall into two categories: (1) “Work That an Author Would Most Likely Do” (which should be included in the value calculation); and (2) “Work That an Author Would Most Likely Not Do” (which should not be included in the value assessment).

When assigning the calculated value of the support to authors, the ISMPP Task Force suggests two approaches for consideration and comments both that companies also may have other interpretations and that individuals should “seek internal legal and policy guidance on interpretation and application of the law to their company.”

The first approach, a “project-by-project determination,” takes the total cost of the publication support and divides it by the number of authors associated with the publication. The document includes an example of this scenario:

“A primary manuscript costs $30,000. There are a total of 6 authors; 3 authors are US CRs, 2 authors reside and practice outside of the US and do not hold current US licenses, and 1 is an AM employee. For the purpose of this example, it is determined that 30% ($9,000) of the total cost is for non-content-development activities. The total value of the content-development activities is $21,000; the reportable TOV per author for the development of the manuscript is $3,500 ($21,000/6) TOVs are reported for the 3 US authors (3 x $3,500).”

A second assignment approach described in the ISMPP document uses “average fair market value” (FMV) as the sum of average costs associated with the specific type of publication, with the same FMV amount to be reported per author. So, if the average cost of a manuscript for Company X is determined to be $28,000 with an average of 6 authors, the document states, after you have subtracted the average non-content-development related costs of 27%, the content-related costs of the work are $20,440 and the reportable per-author FMV is $3,406 per manuscript ($20,440/6).

Whichever approach is used, the Task Force underscores the importance of submitting an assumptions document to CMS describing the methodology used to determine reportable costs. “The assumptions document is an integral part of the report, especially due to the lack of CMS guidance,” Norris said, “as long as you are transparent and list how you allocate value.” He also noted that although there may be some justifiable outliers, “Using the same methodology across the board is more defendable.”

Norris added that he hopes there will not be “unintended consequences” to the mandated reporting of publication support. “Although this support has value, doctors are not receiving a penny; the support only helps get important data published quickly so it can change clinical practice as appropriate,” he said. “If doctors back off from receiving this support because they don’t want that TOV listed next to their names, the process of getting those data out without assistance will take much longer, and that will affect patients.”

Reporting under the Sunshine Act began on Aug. 1.