July 10, 2008

Drug-Company Association Bans Freebies for Doctors

Drug-company representatives won’t be showering doctors with pens and other product-endorsing paraphernalia under a revised code of conduct approved by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Associated Press reported today.

The association, which represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, will ban logo-bearing knickknacks under revised rules that will take effect on January 1.

Sales representatives will be barred from taking a doctor out for a restaurant meal or a game of golf, but they will be permitted to offer an occasional modest meal in a health professional’s office “in conjunction with informational presentations.”

Critics of drug companies’ marketing practices believe that doctors and medical residents who receive freebies are more likely to prescribe more expensive, and potentially less effective, medications.

Billy Tauzin, president of the pharmaceutical association, thinks that’s unlikely.

“I don’t think you’ll find a physician who will acknowledge that the gift of a pen or a cup with a company’s name on it influences their prescribing patterns,” he told the AP. “But there are people who believe that, and as long as that’s a perception out there, we felt we ought to end that.” —Katherine Mangan

Comments

1. I’m all in favor of this as I suspect these “gifts” have gone far beyond mugs and include things like vacations. And from a practical standpoint, these gifts — of whatever ilk — definitely aren’t free. They are built into the already too high cost of medication. This is not a solution —- but a start.

   — Kathy    Jul 11, 07:38 AM    #

2. Note the irrelevancy of the last Tauzin quote. The doctors won’t admit influence. Gee, what a shock. But that wasn’t the issue. The issue is influence, and what anyone will admit to, and what is actually occurring, are so obviously different, Tauzin’s response must be viewed as disingenuous.

   — jon    Jul 11, 08:16 AM    #

3. Billy Tauzin is probably remembering the legislation setting up “gaming” in his home state of Louisiana…gambling being unconstitutional. “Gaming” lobbyists were prohibited from buying legislators a drink of water among the first laws passed. That saved the industry untold millions as the Legislature was salivating over the prospect of a new “non-tax” revenue source.

   — John M. Hays    Jul 11, 08:29 AM    #

4. This is a welcome but trivial move. But it will do nothing to address the more serious problem of pervasive industry-sponsored influence on the conduct and dissemination of clinical research.

   — Karen    Jul 11, 08:37 AM    #

5. It is a very common practice for the drug companies to furnish catered lunches daily at many large doctor offices and labs. This is much more expensive than pens and mugs and much more influencing. According to this article, this practice will continue.

   — Anne    Jul 11, 09:33 AM    #

6. I went to a doctor once with a cold. His pen and clipboard were branded with the same medication, along with a dozen other items in his office. I was shocked when he prescribed that medication to me.

   — Shawn    Jul 11, 09:34 AM    #

7. Ad speciality companies that make cups, mugs and apparel stay in business because this kind of advertising works. Product placements in movies work. This is why companies pay money for them. We’d like to think that doctors are somehow immune to the influence of advertising, but turns out they’re human after all.

   — Debbie C    Jul 11, 09:47 AM    #

8. Yes, this seems like a “trivial” move. Yes, catered lunches are common and problematic. I was in this business and can tell you the excesses of the old days were appalling. On the other hand, I can also attest to huge benefits from drug company sponsorships of educational initiatives and research programs. The readers of this publication should be sophisticated enough to understand that the relationships among the medical community and big pharma are extremely complicated and big pharma is full of highly ethical and dedicated professionals. And today’s discussion is about a pretty insignificant issue.

   — Ed    Jul 11, 10:16 AM    #

9. RE: “I’m all in favor of this as I suspect these “gifts” have gone far beyond mugs and include things like vacations.”

   The vacation “gift” is alive and well – Speaker’s Bureaus and retreats to Ski Areas, Golf Course and other resorts where Doctors get presented the Pro’s and Cons of a drug are quite common – Doctors even bitch if the retreat isn’t at a nice enough place.And that seems as likely to change as the sexually discriminatory practice of hiring mostly hot young femaes to be the Drug Company sales reps.

   — Al    Jul 11, 10:42 AM    #

10. “The readers of this publication should be sophisticated enough to understand that the relationships among the medical community and big pharma are extremely complicated and big pharma is full of highly ethical and dedicated professionals. And today’s discussion is about a pretty insignificant issue.”

    The readers of this pubblication should be sophisticated enough to realize that the average drug company Exec would kill your grandmother with an off-indication perscription for a few sheckles and a quarter-point on their stock prices faster than you can say ‘knife’, just like the average banking exec would crash the entire financial system for the same reason, by giving out adjustable rate mortages to people who would not be able unerstand or make later baloon payments.

    Ed – either you are naive, or clueless or disingenuous.

    — Al    Jul 11, 10:47 AM    #

11. Golly, no more pens or notepads? What about the “continuing education seminars” at ski resorts and beaches to which wives and families are invited, all expenses paid? Pens and notepads?

    I’m sure there are many “highly ethical and dedicated professionals” in the pharmaceutical industry, but I’ll bet they’re scarce in the marketing and sales departments. I’ll bet my Zyrtec-branded pen on that.

    — Adam Van Damm    Jul 11, 10:48 AM    #

12. When I think about drug companies influencing physicians, I always think about a physician acquaintance of mine and the ‘geriatric psychotropic medication study section’ that he was on – three or so hours of meetings during a five day weekend in some swanky South Carolina resort. I am sure Billy Tauzin and the Big Pharmas will continue this type of “education” seminar.

    — gl    Jul 11, 10:53 AM    #

13. This brought to mind a hilarious “editorial” I read in The Onion (a satirical newspaper) some time ago. Check it out here — http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33220

    — Rich    Jul 11, 11:35 AM    #

14. Big Pharma reaps billions annually by spending tens of millions courting doctors and legislators to push their products or pass legislatives mandates requiring vaccinations of dubious value such as the Gardasil vaccine that was fast-tracked and approved by the FDA despite limited, incomplete clinical trials especially regarding the sometime fatal side-effects as well as the long-term effects. The manufacturer has tried to induce state legislatures to mandate that girls aged 10-14 be required to have the three-injection vaccine (at $120 per injection). Do the math: with 10+ million girls in that age cohort, it’s a $3.5 billion bonanza for the drug-maker and a similar amount for the doctors – and more $$ as younger age cohorts mature. Before returning to academia from the business world, I worked for the unholy trinity: insurance, oil, and pharmaceuticals. The latter industry was, by far, the least ethical – no pun intended.

    — BH    Jul 11, 11:40 AM    #

15. In this day an age you need to protect yourself. If a doctor prescribes something, do your own research before taking it. How long has it been out and what are ALL the side effects? Don’t rely on the piece of paper that comes in the box. Our institution banned all rep events years ago. No freebees on this campus and I am glad.

    — WC    Jul 11, 11:53 AM    #

16. Does this also apply to my pot dealer?

    — Dr. Teddy Wanker    Jul 11, 01:08 PM    #

17. Having been on both sides of the fence, I think the biggest issue is the public misconception of big pharma. For some reason, many people believe that pharma companies should be held to a different standard than other industries when it comes to marketing. Just because the product is pharmaceuticals doesn’t mean their marketing and/or advertising tactics are (or should be) less aggressive than, say, retail industries. At the end of the day, pharma companies are responsible to their shareholders (many of whom are likely amongst those railing against pharma practices), otherwise they will be out of business. Aggressive pharma marketing to a physician is the same as a a toy company putting ads in every children’s show on TV – they are marketing to their audience and they are doing it to move the product, period. As for intrusion into the clinical trials process, consider that it is pharma who puts the most funding into pharmaceutical R&D and what do you honestly expect? That they will take a ‘hands-off’ approach to trials that will sink multi-million dollar investments? A better answer would be for the FDA to be given more funding and authority to change its regulatory policies to mandate comparative trials against standard treatments rather than placebos; to require post-marketing trials as a condition of approval and to review marketing ads and information proactively for accuracy and marketing only for approved indications. As for pricing, part of the pricing formula is to recoup R&D costs, marketing costs, etc. But the formula also looks at pricing of other products in that drug category as well as what consumers will pay for that particular class of drugs. Marketing cost is a part, but consumer desire for the ‘quick-fix pill’ is also a part and shouldn’t be discounted. Many of the chronic diseases we suffer from today would be better treated with lifestyle modification than with a pill, but that is a bigger discussion for another day.

    — DL    Jul 11, 01:22 PM    #

18. All the pens and clipboards in the world wouldn’t make a difference to the drugs I get: thanks to my cheap health plan, I won’t ever get brand-name products anyway.

    — jenjen    Jul 11, 02:56 PM    #

19. Mr. Billy Tauzin has read neither his Bourdieu nor his Mauss. The function of gifts is not to alter behavior, but to create dispositions. These relationships have been immensely valuable for pharma and physicians alike.

    — Lewis Hyde    Jul 11, 02:57 PM    #

20. Tis a tale…full of sound and fury – signifying nothing.

    — Al    Jul 15, 07:08 PM    #

Previous: 'Custom' Textbooks Raise Money -- and Questions of Ethics
Next: New Faculty Members Say Graduate School Left Them Underprepared