Comments on: Senate Wants Schering-Plough ‘49 Plan’ Papers

By: Disgusted

Disgusted — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:16:24 +0000

In my experience, I beleive that this program is nothing compared to some of the other programs that have been run by Big pharma in the past. I simply won’t see reps anymore because they’re always trying to influence my prescribing in ways that I’m not comfortable with as a professional.

At least half of them aren’t qualified to talk about the prescription drugs. many of them are straight out of college, do a few week training course, and then hit the streets. They have their rehearsed talk that they can parrot, but ask them a question and they’re lost.

By: BPW

BPW — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:29:24 +0000

If Congress is interested in getting some tips, then they should check out CafePharma. The sales representatives, current and former, are giving them multiple examples of Big Pharma misdeeds that may be very helpful for investigative efforts. These are the people that know what’s being done!

By: AAU

AAU — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:07:21 +0000

In my mind, these Big Pharma companies are becoming too bold and brazen in their total disregard of rules and regulations. This plan is very mild compared with what I’ve seen in the industry. I believe that a little digging into Schering-Plough’s records will reveal a whole lot more.

By: SP 2

SP 2 — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:15:05 +0000

I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg at Schering-Plough. If Congress really started to investigate and take a look inside this company, I think they would find much, much more that they would be very concerned about.

By: JM

JM — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:54:42 +0000

I have a question for the Pharmalot regulars out there (including Ed)….

If Pharma was told that they could not directly pay for CME or other “educational activities” but that they could pay into a fund that might be controlled, administered, and managed by a state medical board, would they still pay?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:23:52 +0000

Oh, and one further thought on this: How much time in front of the doctor/PA will an academic detailer get? In order to present evidence for all the therapies available for any given condition - and retain the busy doctor/PA’s attention - these people are going to be very special and very persuasive. I suspect they’ll need more than the 90 seconds that seems the norm for a call. What exactly is the real incentive to have these academic educators visit anyway?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:18:22 +0000

Robyn,
You are right of course and my question was rhetorical. The drug rep is required to present info supportive of her/his employer and for sure they will never be taken for academic educators. But who is going to pay for all the replacement academic educators? If pharma companies withdrew their financial support from ‘education’ there would be many holes opening up which neutrals would find hard to fill: so much non-promotional education is underwritten by pharma as others on here have pointed out. Are cardiologists going to pay for their annual conferences out of their own pockets? I doubt it. So I’m saying there is a role for pharma and pharma’s reps as well as educators, but I just don’t see the logistics and resources to make it happen.

By: Robyn

Robyn — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:41:56 +0000

Chris,

“What on earth defines the best drug?”

The best treatment is decided by looking carefully at and comparing the evidence for all of the therapies available (including non-drug therapies) for a given condition.

Drug reps cannot be educators because they are obliged by their employers only to present one aspect of the whole story, and that in a way that is most likely to gain them sales.

Academic detailers are able to help doctors examine the evidence more fully, with their primary interest being the welfare of the patient not the bottom line of a pharmaceutical company.

By: Doc

Doc — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:26:00 +0000

Chris,
I have been involved with regulatory and legal approval of promotional materials. The industry has made big strides in recent years to try and assure that materials are fair and balanced, that I do not argue. However, once those materials hit the field you are dealing with an entirely different problem. My contention, based on considerable field experience with several companies, is that the incentive style programs and incessant drive to be number 1, along with sales administration’s zealous focus on profits and representative goal attainment, makes many reps go beyond their knowledge and understanding in their promotional efforts. Coprorate oversight has improved due to strict government oversight, but many sales reps still present an unbalanced view of their products efficacy and safety to physicians. This type of ‘hype promotion’ is virtually impossible to document, and in fact is ignored by many middle and low level managers in their quest for performance rankings within their company. Profits are good things, as long as they are not made at patient’s expense.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:41:45 +0000

Hi Doc,
Just wondering what is your role in pharma. Presumably it does not involve approval of the materials referred to, 50% of which are outside compliance with fair balance.
Somebody is approving the programs, materials, supporting data, and ultimate messages put out by your employer.
If it’s so troubling aren’t there confidential ways for you to sort out these transgressions?
The industry exists to make money but it must comply with systems that ensure ethical behavior.
If your company doesn’t, the decision ought to be easy.