“Although the concept of free, immediate and unfettered access to newly published research sounds enticing, the plan as proposed may not achieve the goals intended. In fact, there is a high likelihood of unintended consequences for equity, quality, peer review, scientific record oversight, financial sustainability and the very future of biomedical scientific research,” said Gary Bryant, MD, chair of the ACR’s delegation to the AMA.
Dr. Bryant continued, “The rapidity of the proposed plan, specifically the elimination of the 12-month embargo, would be extremely disruptive and likely negatively impact scholarly publishing and dissemination. There are many concerns and likely unintended consequences, and we thank all who supported this effort at the meeting. We will now look forward to working with the AMA and many stakeholders as we continue to address these issues with policy makers.”
As a result of this work and passage of the ACR’s resolution at the HOD meeting, the AMA will now work with publishing and professional organizations and Congress to raise awareness of possible adverse consequences of the proposed NIH Public Access Plan and to mitigate such consequences to ensure continued equitable access to quality clinical research.
This national policy advancement would not have happened without the ACR’s initiative to develop policy, convene other concerned stakeholder specialty societies and drive a coalition, nor without partnering societies’ help and substantial support at the meeting. This success was also possible because ACR members join and maintain memberships in the AMA, allowing the delegation representation at the meeting.
In-Office Specialty Drug Dispensing
The HOD also passed Resolution 246, authored by the Association for Clinical Oncology with the ACR as a cosponsor to advance policy to provide protections for practices related to office-based dispensing of specialty drugs.
The AMA will now request the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rescind its recent determination that delivery of medicine to a patient using the U.S. Postal Service, a commercial package service or a trusted surrogate violates the in-office exception of the physician self-referral law, commonly referred to as the Stark law. Additionally, if the CMS were not to change its position on disallowing the delivery of medicine to a patient using the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial package service, the AMA will call for legislation to clarify that a surrogate may deliver medicine dispensed at a physician-owned pharmacy without being in violation of the Stark law.
