Comments on: Connecticut AG Wants To Ban Pharma Gifts

By: M Helm, MD

M Helm, MD — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:12:49 +0000

I think Chris summed it up well. Though, I still would like to see the “free” clinic lunches taxed at the clinic level as an employee benefit provided by the clinic. This might not affect inappropriate marketing, but it would be a step toward tax parity for those of us in healthcare who refuse PhRMA gifts of any size. (Yes, I even buy my own pens.) After the clinic has had a pizza party sponsored by Brand X, there is a greater likelihood of Brand X recommendations from staff.

Jen, there are a few points you may wish to consider about the value of being the first to try a new drug without personal financial risk. A recent study showed that total medication costs were higher among patients who received samples, versus those who did not.

Additionally, the risks associated with newer medications are greater than with older medications. Sadly, there are a long list of newly approved medications (most recently apparently Vytorin/Zetia) which have failed to meet their hype.

Many of the best treatments (when considering beneficial long-term health outcomes - not “study endpoint” measures) are available inexpensively as generics. This means the samples can push you into the hole sooner and expose you to greater risks of adverse events.

I suppose someone has to be the first to try a new medicine. After 20 years in and around most sides of the industry, I sure don’t want it to be me!

Ed has highlighted PharmedOut and NoFreeLunch here before. Maybe someone should clue-in AG Blumenthal?

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:14:23 +0000

And too bad for the patients who actually benefit from visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their physicians offices. Patients that get to try a drug first by utilizing samples that these reps have left with the physicians. As a patient, you don’t get to “return” a drug to the pharmacy because you don’t think you like it or it didn’t work. You don’t get your money back and in the case of MEDD, you are still that much closer to the doughnut hole.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:44:17 +0000

The connecticutt proposals go no further than what law and most PhRMA company policies provide. It completely misses the mark because it doesn’t go after the really big dollars and the companies have learned very well over the years how to work within these types of minimal constraints. Simply put, it’s not hard to “find” an important purpose if you really want to hold a consulting meeting, trust me. With or without these provisions you will still have thousands of doctors serving as speakers and consultants making tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Folks like Blumenthal are trying to get a sound byte while playing in an arena that they don’t understand. They are going after the lunches and the pens and mugs while PhRMA is working hard to keep speaking and consulting fees hidden and off the table. We need reporters who will step up and call this stuff what it is, sound byte politics that won’t make even the smallest dent in the problem.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:18:31 +0000

Agree with James. The government should be for us and not thier alliances to others.

By: James

James — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:34:07 +0000

First, let’s ban gifts to politicians. They have far more influence on our lives, since they compel obedience through law. If I don’t want to take a drug, I don’t have to. Can’t say the same in response to the laws they pass.

Oh, wait, what am I thinking? Politicians aren’t influenced by donations. They have our best interests in mind. Nevermind.

By: ol cranky

ol cranky — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:23:52 +0000

Prohibit any gifts, scholarships or other items in exchange for prescribing products, a commitment to continue prescribing products or to otherwise interfere with the independence of a health care provider’s prescribing practices

according to the companies and docs, nothing is ever given with any strings attached.