Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Question of the Day: June 5, 2013 Should States Passes Laws Requiring Compounders to Carry Liability Insurance Sufficient to Cover Some if Not all of a Catastrophic Event Such As What Happened in NECC?

Would requiring this type of insurance be so costly that it would put most smaller compounders out of business?  Should only the "compounding manufacturers" if that version of the Senate bill passes be required to carry this type of insurance?  What about requiring physicians and veteriaians who use compounded preparations to carry this type of insurance?  

I am not an expert on this type of insurance,  but the Truth About Compounding website provides:

Does malpractice insurance cover the potential liabilities associated with prescribing compounded drugs?The liability for physicians using a compounded drug (non-FDA–approved) is significant, with several negative consequences. A major liability for a physician who uses a compounded drug (non-FDA-approved), is the possible invalidation of their malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance typically excludes coverage of procedures that involve the use of non FDA approved drugs. Unlike pharmaceutical companies, compounders do not carry liability insurance that is sufficient to protect physicians from catastrophic damages. The use of a compounded or imported drug could leave a physician with tremendous personal liability and possible criminal prosecution.

Readers feel free to set the record straight on how this works or how you think it should work. 

No comments: