21

THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2022 Page 21 REAL ESTATE TRANSAC TIONS Copyrighted material previously published in Banker & Tradesman/The Commercial Record, a weekly trade newspaper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group. For a searchable database of real estate transactions and property information visit: www.thewarrengroup.com. BUYER1 BUYER2 Montano Jr, Ferdinando BHRC | FROM PAGE 20 Senate chair of the Committee on Health Care Financing. “[The bill] ensures that more consumers can access prescription drugs at a fair price, by capping out-ofpocket insulin costs, providing relief for certain high-cost drugs, improving patient access to medications and pharmacies of their choice and enhancing transparency and oversight within the SELLER1 Deluca, Joseph B pharmaceutical industry.” “Our Helpline takes calls from people across the state who can’t afford their medications,” said Amy Rosenthal, executive director at Health Care For All. “Individuals and families in Massachusetts have been struggling for far too long to access and afford the prescriptions they need, and this legislation provides critical financial relief at a pivotal time,.By passing this bill today, senators took SELLER2 Deluca, Marie Elena an important step to rein in excessive drug costs, bringing oversight of pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefit managers in line with other health care industries in the state.” Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), the only senator to vote against the measure, acknowledged that there are many laudable parts of the bill but criticized parts to which he objected and resulted in his vote against it. “[The bill] unfairly penalizes individuals who receive mail-order prescriptions by raising the cost of their drugs,” said Fattman. “Many people today use mail order prescriptions from pharmacies because of the convenience and the fact that there are certain discounts offered for out-of-pocket costs. The number of people that use this program has increased significantly since the start of the pandemic, as it was seen as a safer and more convenient alternative for many people who wanted to avoid going to the store and being in public. The passage of this bill will force all current mail-order pharmacy patients, many of whom are older or ill, to pay higher out-ofpocket cost because they will not be allowed to take advantage of these discounts. [That provision] is a poison pill, and in good conscience, I can’t vote to increase costs for drugs for those who want them delivered via mail.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against the bill.) Sen. Brendan Crighton Yes DRUG COUPONS (S 1651) Senate 7-31, rejected an amendment extending until 2028 the current law, due to expire in 2023, that allows consumers to use coupons to get discounts and rebates when purchasing prescription drugs. In 2012, Massachusetts was the last state to lift a ban on the use of prescription coupons. “It’s important that we continue to have this particular tool particularly because it helps those who have high out of pocket costs, which a recent state study concluded are twice the national average and the third-highest in the nation,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester). “This amendment helps consumers control their out-of-pocket costs and provides further information for policymakers so we can achieve what is clearly our common objective—reducing the systemic cost of prescription drugs and improving the lives of those who need prescription medicines.” ADDRESS 3 Fox Hollow Dr CITY Saugus Amendment opponents said that extending the authorization for prescription drug coupons is typically done through a provision in the annual state budget. They noted they prefer doing it that way because the budget, with the coupon provision, will eventually get to the governor’s desk and be signed into law. They noted that including it as part of a comprehensive drug bill with an uncertain future is not a good idea. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment extending the use of coupons. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Brendan Crighton No POSSIBLE LICENSING OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE SALES REPS (S 1651) Senate 38-0, approved an amendment that would require the Department of Public Health, in consultation with the attorney general, district attorneys, health care practitioners and patient advocates, to review the existing “gift ban law” which is the marketing code of conduct that bans and limits gifts by pharmaceutical and medical device representatives to physicians. The original ban from 2008 included a ban on the payment and provision of meals to doctors at restaurants and other venues outside of the health care setting. This provision was repealed in 2012 and current law now allows for those meals. The department’s analysis would include a comparison of the marketing code of conduct rules with similar rules established in other states; a review of any enforcement actions taken for violations of the law; a review of opioid marketing practices and direct impact upon increased substance abuse disorders and related deaths; an assessment of the need and recommendations for implementation, for further requirements to ensure marketing activities by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers do not influence prescribing patterns in a manner that adversely affects patient care; and requiring the licensing of all pharmaceutical and medical device representatives. “We license hairstylists to protect the safety and wellbeing of consumers so there really isn’t a legitimate argument against the licensing of pharmaceutical and medical device sales reps marketing life-saving devices and powerful drugs, including opioids,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New BesDATE 25.01.2022 PRICE $980 000,00 ford) who also had sponsored the first gift ban and licensing bill in 2006. “The corruption of the sacred doctor-patient relationship by the pharmaceutical industry by schmoozing at fancy restaurants is exactly the consequence that the original gift ban law was intended to prevent. Such dinners contribute to the illegitimate relationship between some physicians and [the] industry that can make some doctors feel obliged to prescribe high-cost brand name drugs, even when a cheaper alternative may be more appropriate.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.) Sen. Brendan Crighton Yes HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK’S SESSION? Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature’s job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session. During the week of February 7-11, the House met for a total of six hours and 26 minutes and the Senate met for a total of four hours and 11 minutes. Mon. Feb. 7 House 11:02 a.m. to 11:24 a.m. Senate 11:09 a.m. to 11:26 a.m. Tues. Feb. 8 No House session No Senate session Wed. Feb. 9 House 11:03 a.m. to 12:13 p.m., No Senate session Thurs. Feb. 10 House 11:00 a.m. to 3:54 p.m. Senate 11:42 a.m. to 3:36 p.m. Fri. Feb. 11 No House session No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall. com Bob founded Beacon Hill Roll Call in 1975 and was inducted into the New England Newspaper and Press Association (NENPA) Hall of Fame in 2019.

22 Publizr Home