Comments on: Lilly CEO To Boston: Pharma Will Be Scared Away

By: Frederick Hirth, RPh

Frederick Hirth, RPh — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:36:15 +0000

To all the drug reps out there please take a look at http://www.medi-ring.com. This product would be a great way to by-pass this rule. The Medi-Ring goes to John Q. Public, not the physician or pharmacist.

Check it out.

By: Diverse Nurse

Diverse Nurse — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:44:48 +0000

I have had some interaction with drug reps and until I got to know a few, I thought about going that route. Most patients don’t have a clue about the idiotic rules reps have to play by or the pressure put on them by physicians to violate those rules. Some docs (not all or most) feel they are entitled to perks from drug companies.

As far as research goes, the FDA, State Departments of Health and Joint Commission should be looking into the behavior of the research departments of some hospitals and universities - a complete lack of ethics and what a waste of money.

I say take the handcuffs off. The rules instituted by the government only get enforced when someone has a political ax to grind or someone gets sued. Let big pharma market their products any way they want. It’s up to the physician and consumer to make prudent decisions about patient care. Many patients/consumers don’t care about health care until they get sick. Then they think it is like taking their car to Jiffy Lube. Take an active role in your own health care - let the buyer beware!

By: Super Rep

Super Rep — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:23:18 +0000

In response to Dan A, I am sorry if you have felt ignored by the local reps in your doctors office, but the truth is, our companies and your doctor have advised us NOT to talk to the patients in the waiting room. We are frequently asked questions by patients, such as, “Do you think your drug would be better for me than the one I am taking?”
Never in a million years would I answer that question.

1. I am not a physician.

2. I do not know your history or what other drugs you are on.

I will make pleasant conversation with patients about non medical subjects, but I would never try to market to a patient or diagnose them in the waiting room. If I am asked a medical question, I always say, “That is a discussion you should have with your doctor”

By: Disgusted

Disgusted — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:17:09 +0000

I say “Open up the books and let’s see who has paid who what in the past 5 years!” It will disgust everybody.

By: harpy

harpy — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:52:42 +0000

I think the “threat” to clinical trials is the disclosure provision - “shall disclose to the department of public health the value, nature, purpose and particular recipient of any fee, payment, subsidy or other economic benefit with a value of at least $50, which the company provides, directly or through its agents, to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist, health benefit plan administrator, health care practitioner or other person in the commonwealth authorized to prescribe, dispense, or purchase prescription drugs or medical devices in the commonwealth.” They don’t want to make public how much they pay.

And your second question, Nathan, is a very good one. It certainly sounds like off-label lit would be included, if peer-reviewed, and that would be huge. But there are also requirements for counter-detailing written into the law. The state has to “develop, implement and promote an evidence-based outreach and education program about the therapeutic and cost-effective utilization of prescription drugs for physicians, pharmacists and other health care professionals authorized to prescribe and dispense prescription drugs.” (Section 5) So it could work for or against pharma.

By: Meg

Meg — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:37:46 +0000

Mr. Lechleiter, What kind of schoolyard bully do you think you are? If you, and the other pharmas, had had to play by these rules in 2002, my son would be alive instead of dead from Zyprexa. I have seen copies of the scripts Lilly gave to its drug reps then, the words carefully crafted to steer the conversation away from doctor concerns about weight gain, diabetes, hyperglycemia, and death. I read Lilly’s denials in newspaper articles that finally came out in 2003 (Times, WS Journal).

Bob Freeman wonders what color the sky is in your world. In your world, I truly believe, there is no sky. Only flames.

By: Bob Freeman

Bob Freeman — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:10:38 +0000

A very hollow threat worth of universal derision. I can’t help but wonder what color the sky is in his world.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:05:46 +0000

Justice asks: “Why, precisely, are clinical trials threatened?”

That’s a good question because in the MA law (linked in Ed’s article) it states that the provisions being drafted MUST allow for “compensation for the substantial professional or consulting services of a health care practitioner in connection with a genuine research project or a clinical trial.”

It seems to me based on this language that the MA law specifically allows for clinical research to take place.

The interesting thing about this law is that it also declares that the provisions being drafted MUST allow for ” the provision, distribution, dissemination or receipt of peer reviewed academic, scientific or clinical information”. Is this a tacit approval of distribution of literature for off-label uses of medications?

By: Reality Bites

Reality Bites — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:43:23 +0000

Playground bullying grows up! The result is a CEO or other significant top management player at a Big Pharma company!

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:32:00 +0000

Definitely. Under current regulations, a wry grin falls into a gray area. But don’t push it or use both hands.