A second opinion for doctors?

Imagine our doctors getting an unbiased education on the medications they prescribe instead of having to rely on drug company sales reps to tell them what’s on the market and how well it works.

That’s already happening in other countries – Australia, England, the Netherlands and some provinces of Canada. It’s happening – or about to – in some parts of the United States, too, including Maine, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

The rest of the nation could see the same thing if a couple of U.S. senators get their way.

Democrats Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois are writing a bill that would provide accurate and objective drug information to any doctor in America who wants it.

Government-funded pharmacists and nurses who’ve studied the drugs – all of them, even generics and over-the-counter ones – and who understand their pros and cons would prepare the information and present it to doctors interested in having it. And the information would be available to consumers, those of us who end up having to take this stuff.

The senators hope to introduce the bill this spring.

“We want patients to feel confident when they get their prescriptions filled, not worry about how much influence pharmaceutical sales reps had in writing it,” Kohl said in a written response to questions.

Not only is it good, common sense, Kohl said, it also will save the country a lot of money – billions of dollars, according to some research.

That’s because doctors would have just as much information on generics or lesser known, less expensive drugs that – for many patients – work just as well.

Experts laid out specifics on the savings at a March 12 hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, chaired by Kohl.

One study found that use of the first-choice drug for high blood pressure, instead of new, expensive, heavily marketed medications, could save about $433 million a year, according to Allan Coukell.

He’s director of policy for the Prescription Project. Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the project looks out for consumers by promoting the appropriate prescribing of drugs and addressing conflicts caused by the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing programs.

“In terms of broader potential savings, we’d point out that optimal use of generics would alone produce national savings of about $8.8 billion per year,” Coukell testified.

Those supporting the legislation make it clear that the goal of the bill will be to find the very best medication for every patient.

“It’s about looking at the medical evidence and going in and having a conversation about what is the best drug for the patient, what is the safest drug and, all other things being equal, what’s the least expensive drug,” Coukell says.

The proposal, by the way, would not ban drug company sales reps from making their pitches to doctors. The information these new educators provide would be in addition to that.

So far, the bill hasn’t met with huge opposition, at least not publicly.

This month, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association said it has remained neutral when states have taken up this issue.

“However, governmental efforts to drive particular prescribing decisions by physicians need to be approached with great caution,” its statement says, “and with the recognition of the many factors in the current system that can impact prescribing decisions.”

The list of factors includes doctors’ judgment and experience, medical journal data, a patient’s needs and co-pays that promote the use of generic medications.

Doctors – at least some of them – welcome the change.

Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, testified at the March 12 hearing about how it’s impossible for doctors to stay on top of the vast amount of new drug information published every week.

“Important findings may be reported in any of a hundred journals, and it’s no one’s job to make sure we see them,” Avorn said.