The ties that bind? Posted by Liz at 03/21/07 04:08 PM

Minnesota is one of the few states that passed a law requiring drug makers to disclose any payments given to doctors and the New York Times today reported on these records going back to 1997.

Doctors said their lectures about drugs to other doctors in return for the payments were gentle marketing pitches that adhered strictly to messages approved by drug makers and federal drug regulators. Drug companies “want somebody who can manipulate in a very subtle way,” said Dr. Frederick R. Taylor, a headache specialist in Minneapolis who earned more than $710,000 between 1997 and 2005, much of that from GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the migraine drug Imitrex.

Ken Johnson, senior vice president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said interactions between drug companies and doctors were beneficial. “In the end, patients are well-served when technically trained pharmaceutical research company representatives work with health care professionals to make sure medicines are used properly,” he said.

There is nothing illegal about doctors’ accepting money for marketing talks, and professional organizations have largely ignored the issue.

But research shows that doctors who have close relationships with drug makers tend to prescribe more, newer and pricier drugs — whether or not they are in the best interests of patients.

“When honest human beings have a vested stake in seeing the world in a particular way, they’re incapable of objectivity and independence,” said Max H. Bazerman, a professor at Harvard Business School. “A doctor who represents a pharmaceutical company will tend to see the data in a slightly more positive light and as a result will overprescribe that company’s drugs.”

We know that doctors deal with drug reps on a very regular basis, the average doctor interacts with 28 different sales reps each week! Everyone has a right to know if their doctor is accepting any gifts or payments from drug reps. Much more transparency is needed to shine a light on this practice--a practice shown to affect a doctor's prescribing decisions.

comments (5)

1 Posted by Thomas Wieken at 04/21/07 06:50 AM

What is a HTML tag for style.

I have known many sales people whom work very hard to educate doctors about their products. It is very difficult to explain all of the benefits and side effects of a drug. This is not a perfect science and it requires a lot of work. Don't just think that all of these companies are out for the big buck. They would go in the old business and give up trying to help the general population.

2 Posted by Chas at 04/23/07 07:55 PM

Doctors should be subject to the same financial supervision that financial advisors should be. A doctor should be required to disclose ownership of drug company stock.

I once had an allergy doctor that refused to prescribe generics; I always suspected he owned stock in the companies that manufactured the drugs he prescribed.

Same issue up the chain, consumers and doctors should be given the source of information and any conflicts of interest a speaker (doctor) may have.

Why is it allegedly more relevant for me to know that the stockbroker owns the stock being sold to me than information about inducements a doctor may have received to prescribe a drug which will affect my health?

I do not want my medical decisions based on marketing; I want it made on valid scientific testing with all relevant factors provided. Texas needs a statute like Minnesota.

3 Posted by don kandlbinder at 04/25/07 12:32 PM

doctors and the drug companys are all a giant racket

4 Posted by health at 07/13/07 10:51 AM

For a variety of reasons (e.g. time, professional concerns about information quality, online learning opportunities), 22% of doctors said they see fewer sales reps than in the past. This does not appear to be due to a drop in the number of sales reps. It could be related to online detailing. Sixty-five percent of “online doctors” participated in online detailing in 2005.

5 Posted by Steve at 07/13/07 01:03 PM

Both pharmacists and physicians are regulated professions in most jurisdictions. A prescription as a communications mechanism between them is also regulated and is a legal document. Regulations may define what constitutes a prescription, the contents and format of the prescription (including the size of the piece of paper - erosive esophagitis see Exhibit C paragraph 10) and how prescriptions are handled and stored by the pharmacist.