Prescription data

In their recent CMAJ article on the provision of prescription data, Dick Zoutman and coauthors missed some key points, misrepresented IMS HEALTH's current practice and reached conclusions that have the potential to harm health-related research in this country by compromising the availability of information.¹

Although individual estimates of prescribing practice are compiled by IMS, only the individual physician can obtain a report on his or her prescribing practice. The data are released to the pharmaceutical industry only in aggregated form, wherein a physician is identified as part of a group.

Our practices have been approved in Quebec by the Privacy Commissioner and the Health Information Advisory Board, which has strong physician representation. We have ongoing collaborative discussions with Le Collège des médecins. IMS is also the first company in Canada to gain certification according to the Canadian Standards Association's Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, the standard upon which the new federal privacy legislation (Bill C-6) is based. IMS does not collect identifiable patient data and has undertaken 6 independent privacy audits that confirm this fact.

Zoutman and colleagues suggest that we have been less than transparent in informing physicians about our practices. In fact, IMS has gone to significant lengths to publicize its activities with physicians. Further, our Web site (www.imshealthcanada.com) clearly explains our practices and how physicians might communicate directly with us. As a result of our recent mailing to 17 000 practising physicians in Quebec, we received over 1000 requests for health information. Additionally, more than 100 physicians requested and received their prescribing profile free of charge from IMS, allowing them to take the initiative to review their own prescribing practices; only 8 physicians exercised their ability to opt out.

Zoutman and colleagues argue that it is principally the interests of the pharmaceutical companies that are being served by the data collected and provided by IMS. The interests of other stakeholders should also be presented: those of physicians who wish to receive information appropriate to their interests and practice, as part of their own continuing education and self-evaluation; those of researchers who monitor drug use and promote more effective and appropriate treatment methods; those of patients and consumers in an environment where evidence-based decision making is encouraged; those of health care professional bodies who identify, develop and evaluate continuing education programs; and those of governments who develop policy and manage health care resources.

We acknowledge Zoutman and colleagues' attempt to foster debate about prescription data mining practices. Unfortunately, their article does not reflect the current reality of the practices of IMS, nor the valuable role that IMS data plays in serving the information needs of many health sector stakeholders.

Signature

Roger A. Korman
President IMS HEALTH, Canada Pointe-Claire, Que.