At the conference, Kent McClure, General Counsel, Animal Health Institute, presented updates on four topics of primary concern to veterinarians and animal health industries:

• Distribution Practices

• Emotion-based Damages

• Antimicrobial Resistance

• Pharmacy Compounding

Dr. McClure described the evolution of sales of products historically administered and sold by veterinarians from their practices (aka animal hospitals) replete with surgical suites, clinical laboratory services, and pharmacies, all services each veterinarian is licensed to provide.

In the 1990’s pet medications became available to pet owners through third parties, offering delivery of medications to pet owners through medications, vaccines and parasiticides ordered online. Some states, based on concerns from veterinarians over the lack of control over the safety of medications purchased online, began cracking down on these internet sales, requiring verification of prescriptions from veterinarians who had established valid veterinarian-client-patient relationships with owners for whom they provided prescriptions.

Fast forward to the marketplace today which reveals a stark difference.

As Dr. McClure stated, there has been significant scrutiny on the veterinary industry since 2012, including, notably, FTC’s interest in consumers’ access to pet medications, the focus of the FTC Pet Medications Workshop held in October 2012.

As reported by FTC, “a variety of stakeholders, including pet medication manufacturers and distributors, veterinarians, non-veterinary retailers, pharmacists, and consumer advocates participated in the FTC workshop. In addition to the public workshop, the FTC received and reviewed more than 700 written public comments.”

Based on information gathered, in part, from an October 2012 workshop, the report noted that American’s overall spending on their pets has doubled over the last 12 years, and that a significant portion of that spending is devoted to prescription and over-the-counter medications. Of the nearly $56 billion that consumers spent on their pets in 2013, $7.6 billion was spent on prescription and over-the-counter medications for dogs and cats. Significant improvements in traditional pet treatments for flea, tick, and heartworm, as well as the introduction of new treatments for chronic conditions in pets, have contributed to the increase in spending.

FTC reported that “the pet medications industry could become more competitive if:”

consumers had greater access to “portable” prescriptions – or prescriptions that can be filled by someone other than their veterinarian; non-veterinary retailers had greater access to supplies of pet medications, which are currently restricted by exclusive distribution and exclusive dealing arrangements put in place by manufacturers of pet medications; and consumers had more low-priced generic animal drug options to choose from.

The “Fairness to Pet Owners Act of 2015”  (FTPOA) the latest version of a bill introduced in Congress “could result in an unprecedented change in the way in which medications are provided to animals in this country,” according to Dr. McClure.

The AVMA, also opposed to the FTPOA explained that the bill:

would require a veterinarian to provide a copy of each prescription for a companion animal, whether or not requested by the pet owner. A veterinarian would not be able to: require the client to purchase an animal drug at the clinic for which the veterinarian has written a prescription; charge a client a fee for writing a prescription as part of (or in addition to) the fee for the examination and evaluation of a pet; or, require a client to sign, or supply a client with, a waiver or liability disclaimer should the prescription be inaccurately filled by an off-site pharmacy.

Using the FTC report to support passage of the FTPOA would be a mistake.  As Dr. McClure explained, the FTC’s mission and concern is “to prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers . . . without unduly burdening legitimate business activity,” which has nothing to do a pet owners and their veterinarians’ primary concern―the health and safety of the pet.

The FTPOA disrupts an important aspect of the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (a fundamental requirement in the practice of veterinary medicine), the ability to dispense the drugs prescribed.

AVMA expressed concern over the impact the bill would have on veterinarians, pet owners and their pets.  Specifically they said the bill:

would require a veterinarian to provide a copy of each prescription for a companion animal, whether or not requested by the pet owner. A veterinarian would not be able to: require the client to purchase an animal drug at the clinic for which the veterinarian has written a prescription; charge a client a fee for writing a prescription as part of (or in addition to) the fee for the examination and evaluation of a pet; or, require a client to sign, or supply a client with, a waiver or liability disclaimer should the prescription be inaccurately filled by an off-site pharmacy.

 

AVMA concluded:

At the end of the day, we all want what is best for a pet’s health and well-being and for our clients, but we do not believe the Fairness to Pet Owners Act is necessary to accomplish these goals. We encourage congressional leaders to think twice before enacting a solution in search of a problem.

Let’s hope that Congress listens to this sound advice.