Two Bills Could Put Patient Privacy in Danger
Jordan Kirkland - April 9th, 2019
With only a few weeks remaining in the legislative session, Florida lawmakers are looking at ramming through measures that could impact the Sunshine State for years to come.
One bill, if enacted, would further solidify the state’s unfortunate status as a “Judicial Hellhole.”
SB 1700 by Senator Tom Lee and HB 1253 by Representative Amber Mariano could have an adverse effect on the state. making patient's private information public during litigation.
According to the American Tort Reform Association, "these proposals are intended to support the Attorney General’s lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies. There will be, however, regrettable consequences for consumers. As William Large of the Florida Justice Reform Institute testified on the proposals, if the bills are enacted, private data of individual consumers in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Database (PDMP) likely will be made public in litigation. The PDMP was established to guard against individuals going to multiple providers for the same medication, and it was never intended for use as a data repository for litigation. Florida would become an outlier as the only state to allow this disclosure of consumer data."
While the opioid crisis is without question a top priority for Attorney General Ashley Moody and the entire administration, there are major concerns surrounding lawsuits that have been filed in Florida and all around the country.
Below are some of these concerns outlined by ATRA.
1. Prescription opioids, like all pharmaceuticals, are regulated throughout the supply chain – from FDA approval, to the process for prescribing, through distribution and ultimately sale to the consumer. But will litigation “solve” the opioid addiction crisis?
2. A recent investigation by the Washington Post revealed that much of the problem the nation faces is actually illegal fentanyl, and the NIH reports that nearly twice as many opioid related deaths in Florida involve fentanyl rather than those that require prescriptions. However, the scourge of synthetic opioids is not addressed in the civil litigation.
3. For nearly a generation, state and local governments have hired personal injury lawyers on a contingency basis to sue entire industries. And while public officials are required to serve the interests of the public, the motivation of contingency fee lawyers is to maximize economic recoveries – and their fees. These competing priorities can lead to corruption or worse, as we’ve seen in Texas.
4. Health advocates will point to the 1998 national tobacco settlement as a roadmap for the states regarding opioids. But a fundamental question must be, “Where does the money go?” A recent analysis of the tobacco litigation revealed that a mere 2% of the funds Texas received in 2016 went to anti-smoking efforts. Oklahoma’s recent $270 million settlement with Purdue directs $12.5 million of that amount to local governments. The state’s lawyers are expected to receive nearly five times the amount going to localities.