Comments on: Eli Lilly To Disclose Payments To Doctors

By: William Meggs, MD

William Meggs, MD — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:56:41 +0000

Those who believe drug companies are buying physicians to use their products unnecessarily are deluded. It is a common practice throughout society for suppliers to attract potential users of their product to a dinner or other function so that they can be informed of new developments and products, and to pay for consultations with experts about issues related to their products. Physicians are generally quite brutal in their interrogation of pharmaceutical companies hyping their wares. Often the encounters lead to reps supplying research articles and deferring questions to medical staff. If physicians are going to be labeled unethical for attending drug company sponsored events to get information, so should every one else from plumbers and contractors to attorneys going to an event to hear about new products in their fields.

By: kudzu fire

kudzu fire — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:55:31 +0000

about time

By: harpy

harpy — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:31:56 +0000

Sorry again, Justice. I’m a Yank, too. I just read too much, and I’m fond of British slang.

By: commentator

commentator — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:00:09 +0000

Because the folks in the pharmaceutical business actually think the patients are their “products”.

Therefore any attempt to educate them and allow them to be “pro active” in their quest for informed consent, actually interferes with Pharma’s ability to increase their market share and well, do business.

I can’t think of any other job one could have that allows you to earn upwards of 500K a year and supplement that with “payola” in the form of speakers fees, free trips, etc.

Hopefully consumers will dis-credit any study authored by doctors on “payola”. Now, if the FDA would only accept studies where each of the P.I. actually got an unencumbered look at the raw data, we might actually start to see some improvements….

By: Reality

Reality — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:25:38 +0000

Are they going to list “consultant” payments, ‘advisory board” honoraria, and the like? Now these figures would be very interseting, with many well-known docs making hundreds of thousands a year on this stuff. I know harvard wouldn’t be happy to see this come about. Some of their people would be right at the top!

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:48:35 +0000

Ha. I also went to “public school” (which I think is the same as what we Yanks call “private school.”)

It is hard to get over the habit of thinking, but we must do our best to support the FDA’s omniscience on all things pharmaceutical. And try not to worry our little heads about it.

Once preempted, twice shy.

What you write about “teeth” has teeth - so many that I will try to forget I ever heard it.

By: harpy

harpy — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:50:24 +0000

Sorry, Justice. Would you believe I even went to public schools?

In looking at it again - the major difference is that the PhRMA Code is voluntary and, unlike Britain’s PMCPA, it has no teeth. There are no consequences for breaking the code, but a $5,000 fine for each infraction of the Mass. law. So it seems PhRMA agrees in principle with the gift ban, they just don’t want to be held to it. Similar to the fight over CME.

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:33:51 +0000

There goes Harpy, thinking again. Watch yourself.

Re: this question: “why did pharma fight so hard to get the gift ban taken out of the Massachusetts law and turn around and ban gifts (excepting educational items) in the new PhRMA Code? Is it a question of control?”

Whatever it is, we’ve seen the pattern numerous times. For example, the FDAAA was going to include a two-year ban on DTC for new drugs. Bill Frist, among others, supported it, Pharma and allies fought it, and it was removed.

Then the Energy Committee - Dingell, Stupak, et. al. - revisited the issue. Shortly thereafter, PhRMA came up with a six month “voluntary” DTC black-out period.

I’m all for positive self-regulation. But these seem to be cases of “good will offensives,” control (fighting larger fire with smaller fire), and creating bargaining chips if needed.

By: Erik

Erik — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:09:16 +0000

Guess they’ll start laundering the payoffs to the docs through the CME companies.

By: Dan A.

Dan A. — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:36:37 +0000

Will they have any money to pay doctors after thier lawsuits?