‘Our Code Doesn’t Go Into That Level Of Detail’
4 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // June 28th, 2007 // 7:32 am
At the Senate hearing yesterday that explored how drugmakers try to sway docs, there was one telling exchange between Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, and Majorie Powell, the trade group’s assistant general counsel, who was testifying - in vain - that drugmakers know how to behave themselves.
What’s particularly interesting is Powell’s presumptuous attitude toward the Senator, until faced with a question she can’t answer.
Here it is….
In the midst of a Senate hearing about the money and gifts that drug makers routinely provide to doctors, McCaskill mentioned that she had a brother who runs a restaurant.
“ And he said that the most lucrative part of his business was the private room that is used mostly by drug companies†to entertain doctors, said McCaskill. “He said that you wouldn’t believe how much expensive wine these guys buy.†The tab often totals thousands of dollars, she said later.
Marjorie Powell assured McCaskill that major drug makers no longer offer doctors expensive dinners. The industry’s code of ethics mandates that free meals be modest — pizza, for instance, Powell said.
“I would, with all due respect, suggest that there has been a change in your brother’s restaurant in recent years,†she said.
McCaskill pressed, “Are they allowed to buy alcohol?â€
Powell responded, “Our code does not go into that level of detail.â€
The senator said, “So they can.â€
Source: The New York Times
JS
The amount you can spend per physician for dinner is 125.00 if they want booze only its just fine and if you want to treat them to a bottle of dom then you just pad the report with names of other docs. The tricky part is what defines a speaker program? We have roundtable discussions where you pay the speaker to have dinner with five of his friends. He or she gets paid a couple of grand and everyone gets happy and hopefully you get the do re mi in the form of RX’s….no more dine and dash so we do this instead no fuss no muss……
Melody
I thought this was a particularly interesting committee meeting. The first panel included David Kassirer, Dr. Rosenthal, Peter Lurie and Susan (or Sharon) Treat (a state senator from Maine.). The testimony provided substantiveevidence of the current problems re: pharma influence, with interesting proposals for correcting some of the problems. One “take away” was that while “disclosure” (and more than a bit of sunshine) would be most helpful, it does not solve the problem. States are working to repair a broken system, and federal cooperation (not preemption) is a necessity since neither pharma nor medical associations seem to understand the value of self-policing.
The second panel included the above-referenced Pharma counsel as well as the current AMA ethics counsel. These two individuals came across to me–and I suspect to the committee members–as little more than mouthpieces, spouting (regurgitating) dogma that runs counter to evidence, namely that the AMA and Pharma are both diligent in their efforts to police and enforce ethics policies, such as they are. These two lawyers need to take a refresher course in “sincerity.”
interesting
Here is an invention that we use in Canada: The doctors we want to attend the talk(CME) at fancy dinner are instantly “promoted” to advicory board members of the Co. As such they are each paid at least $500.00 fee to attend the AB meeting and “contribute” to it. Of course the speaker is a “consultant” to the AB and he/she gets the fat honorarium.
Everyone is happy including the vaiters who usually get generous tips. The only ones unhappy are the overworked sales reps who spend another night warking (the room) without paid overtime .
Does anyone know if we in Canada can initiate class action suits for the unpaid overtime as you nice people in US?
roccaas
The purpose of these Congressional Panels is to spotlight our elected officials “studying” a problem, not solving the problem. No one gets re-elected for urging compliance with existing laws, the are re-elected by passing NEW laws that over-ride or expand on the existing law!