The Perfect Storm Approaching
For over a decade, pharmaceutical scientific engagement has operat
ed on a simple premise: buy enriched data from brokers, layer on sophisticated targeting, and reach healthcare professionals with surgical precision for medical education, KOL identification, and scientific exchange.
This model powered everything from NPI-level targeting for medical symposiums to complex audience segmentation for clinical research outreach.
That foundation is cracking.
Two regulatory forces are converging to create what Medical Affairs leaders are quietly calling “the data winter” — a period when the third-party data that fuels modern pharma scientific engagement will become scarce, expensive, and legally risky.
Important Regulatory Context
Before diving into privacy law impacts, it’s crucial to understand that pharmaceutical engagement operates within multiple regulatory frameworks simultaneously:
FDA Oversight: All promotional prescription drug advertising and labeling must be submitted electronically to FDA before public distribution. Scientific exchange and non-promotional Medical Affairs communications are generally exempt, but the line is closely monitored.
HIPAA Considerations: While pharmaceutical companies are generally not covered entities under HIPAA, they are indirectly impacted through their interactions with providers, payors, and patients who have HIPAA compliance obligations.
State-Specific Requirements: Some states, like Texas, have extended HIPAA-like protections directly to pharmaceutical manufacturers, creating a patchwork of compliance requirements.
FTC Oversight: Companies handling health information must ensure their disclosure statements are not deceptive under the FTC Act, adding another layer of regulatory complexity.
Force One: California’s Delete Act Changes Everything
In October 2023, California passed SB-362, the California Delete Act, creating the most aggressive data broker regulations in U.S. history.
The timeline is unforgiving:
January 1, 2026: California’s Privacy Protection Agency must launch a centralized deletion mechanism — essentially a “do not track” registry for all data brokers.
August 1, 2026: Data brokers will be required to begin processing deletion requests through this system and continue monitoring at least every 45 days thereafter.
January 1, 2028: Data brokers must begin independent audits for Delete Act compliance every three years.
The math is brutal. When consumers can easily request deletion of their data across all brokers simultaneously, the enriched HCP datasets that power precision targeting for medical education, KOL engagement, and scientific outreach will face constant erosion. Industry observers expect broker datasets could shrink materially — some project reductions in the 30–50% range within the first two years of full implementation.
Force Two: The Neural Data Revolution
Simultaneously, states are enacting laws to protect “neural data” — information generated by measuring nervous system activity from consumer devices outside medical settings (think smart headphones, earbuds, and wearables).
California: Neural data protections took effect in January 2025, classifying it as “sensitive personal information” under the CCPA.
Colorado and Montana: Both states enacted similar protections in 2025, requiring express consent before collection or use.
Why does this matter for pharma scientific engagement? These laws do not directly regulate Medical Affairs activities. But because neural data often flows through consumer platforms and third-party data brokers that enhance HCP targeting models, Medical Affairs teams must assess whether their enriched datasets are indirectly impacted.
The result: potential compliance complications for any Medical Affairs organization using third-party enrichment for scientific outreach.
The Cascade Effect
These changes won’t happen in isolation. Based on early implementation patterns and industry analysis, they’re likely to trigger a cascade of disruption across the pharma scientific engagement ecosystem:
Immediate Impact (2025–2027)
Neural data protections already in effect, creating new compliance requirements.
Brokered HCP lists begin shrinking as deletion mechanisms activate.
Compliance overhead drives up data acquisition costs.
Precision models for identifying collaborators and audiences degrade.
Non-compliant targeting introduces regulatory exposure.
Medium-Term Disruption (2027–2030)
Smaller data brokers exit the market.
Major players pivot to first-party data models.
Medical Affairs organizations face capability gaps in outreach.
Early adopters gain durable competitive advantage in KOL engagement.
The New Playbook: Beyond Traditional Data Brokers
Forward-thinking Medical Affairs organizations are already rebuilding their approach around four core strategies:
1. Build Scientific Communities
Transform medical education properties into data collection engines. Disease-specific research platforms, clinical trial networks, and medical conferences become critical assets — not just for scientific exchange, but for compliant data capture.
Example: Instead of buying enriched lists of oncologists, create a cancer research community that physicians voluntarily join for peer collaboration, research updates, and scientific exchange.
2. Partner with Medical Professional Networks
Leverage established healthcare professional platforms that operate on direct consent and voluntary participation. These networks enable compliant NPI-level targeting for scientific outreach and KOL identification.
3. Consent by Design
Embed privacy compliance into every touchpoint:
Clear, specific consent requests
Easy-to-find privacy controls
Purpose-limited use policies
Regular consent renewal
4. Focus on Scientific Value Over Volume
A smaller, high-trust community of engaged HCPs will outperform broad, broker-enhanced lists.
Preparing for the Transition
Medical Affairs organizations that act now have a 24-month head start. Those who wait will scramble.
Phase 1 (Now–Mid 2025):
Audit dependencies, identify community-building opportunities, test reduced-data targeting.
Phase 2 (Mid 2025–2026):
Launch owned scientific properties, partner with professional networks, implement consent management, train teams.
Phase 3 (2026+):
Migrate to first-party models, optimize consent conversion, build long-term advantage.
Global Considerations
While this analysis focuses on U.S. regulations:
GDPR: Europe’s regime applies to any personal data, not just health, with stricter consent requirements.
Multi-jurisdictional complexity: Varying definitions and deletion rights globally require harmonized strategies.
The Coming Competitive Divide
By 2028, pharma scientific engagement will split into two camps:
The Prepared: With robust scientific communities, partnerships, and sustainable consent-driven strategies.
The Dependent: Scrambling to replace deprecated datasets, facing higher costs and reduced reach.
This gap won’t be temporary. In a privacy-first world, earned scientific community data becomes a sustainable moat— difficult to replicate and impossible to regulate away.
Beyond Compliance: The Strategic Opportunity
This isn’t just a regulatory burden — it’s a strategic opportunity. Medical Affairs organizations that build direct, consent-based relationships with healthcare professionals will enjoy:
Higher engagement rates
Better data quality
Sustainable competitive advantage
Lower long-term costs
The Time to Act Is Now
The data winter is coming, but it’s not an ice age. With California’s neural data protections already live and the Delete Act mechanisms launching in 2026, Medical Affairs organizations that prepare thoughtfully will emerge stronger.
The abundance of easy data is ending. The age of earned scientific relationships is beginning.
This analysis is based on current regulatory trends and should not be considered legal advice. Organizations should consult with privacy and regulatory counsel to assess their specific compliance requirements.
FAQ: The End of Easy Data in Pharma Scientific Engagement
1. What exactly is California’s Delete Act and why does it matter for pharma?
The Delete Act (SB-362, passed Oct 2023) requires the California Privacy Protection Agency to launch a centralized deletion mechanism by Jan 1, 2026. Starting Aug 1, 2026, data brokers must honor deletion requests across their entire databases at least every 45 days. By 2028, independent audits will be required. For pharma, this means the enriched third-party datasets that underpin NPI-level targeting will begin to shrink as physicians (and patients) opt out en masse.
2. How are “neural data” laws different from traditional health privacy rules?
Neural data refers to signals generated by measuring nervous system activity — for example, from wearables, earbuds, or consumer neurotechnology. States like California, Colorado, and Montana now classify neural data as sensitive personal information, which requires explicit consent for collection and use. While pharma doesn’t usually collect this data directly, it flows into broker enrichment models that Medical Affairs often relies on, creating indirect compliance risks.
3. Will HIPAA protect pharma companies from these new laws?
No. HIPAA only applies to covered entities (providers, insurers, health systems) and their business associates. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are generally outside HIPAA’s scope. Instead, pharma must comply with state privacy laws, FTC rules, and FDA promotional regulations. Some states — like Texas — have extended HIPAA-like protections to pharma, adding complexity.
4. How quickly will third-party datasets degrade?
Analysts expect significant shrinkage in brokered datasets beginning 2026, once the deletion mechanism is live. Projections suggest some datasets could decline by 30–50% within the first two years. Costs will rise as compliant data becomes scarcer, and targeting precision will decay. The exact pace will depend on consumer adoption of deletion rights and how aggressively states expand privacy protections.
5. What practical steps should Medical Affairs take now?
Audit: Map all dependencies on third-party data enrichment.
Shift: Invest in owned scientific communities (websites, portals, clinical networks).
Partner: Leverage HCP professional platforms with built-in consent models.
Embed: Make “consent by design” a core principle across all engagement.
Train: Equip teams to pivot from volume-driven outreach to scientific value-driven engagement.
