Understood. I wasn’t attempting to be argumentative. And I don’t know if your interpretation is correct. Perhaps at the end of the day, the dollar value of whatever was given - cash or whatever - was the focus here.

Cheers
ed

Peter has a point. I don’t think you are dressing this up to create this impression, I believe that Public Citizen intentionally blurs the terms “gift” and “payment” so they can make it look as though Pharma is giving millions of dollars in gifts. In reality, the majority of payments are for services performed (speakers fees, consulting, etc.). I seriously doubt that there are significant violations of either the AMA or PhRMA guidelines.

Atlex

With all due respect, there was nothing intentional about the lack of a definition for ‘gifts.’ The issue of payments is discussed, actually, in the original 2007 JAMA paper referred to in this post. However, I was only able to include a link to the abstract, because a subscription may be required to access the entire article. However, the following is from the introduction section…

“Interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and health care professionals often involve payments: cash payments; cash-value payments, such as gift certificates; or in-kind payments, such as meals, textbooks, conference fees, or luggage. In contrast to many other professions, including education and law, medicine allows payments from a company to an individual who decides whether and how often to use products produced by the company. To avoid undue influence, the American Medical Association recommends that gifts (but not other payments) to physicians should benefit patients and not exceed $100 in value, a recommendation similar to those of other medical organizations and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Other individuals have proposed eliminating all direct payments…

“We sought to determine the accessibility and quality of the data available in Vermont and Minnesota through their payment disclosure laws and to describe the prevalence and magnitude of disclosed payments of $100 and more…”

The authors also referred to the AMA guidelines, which you can read here…

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4001.html

There was no effort on my part to dress up this post to create a ‘horrible’ impression. I was simply reporting a development involving an ongoing story. In this case, the advocacy group filed suit against the Vermont AG and the 21 drugmakers over disclosure of data, reached a settlement (which allows it access to the data each year) and, then, released updated info based on its analysis of the recently obtained data.

I hope this helps,
ed

This is one state. Take into account the demographics of other states, and the diseases that are most prevalent at various locations. It’s more money paid to doctors, et. al. than one could possibly imagine, I believe with the experiences I have had with this industry.

As a former drug rep with big pharma, I never had a limit on who I bought in the ten years I was involved with this vocation. In fact, I received larger raises per year that directly and specifically correlated with the amount of money I gave to prescribers. The more I spent from my employer to doctors, the more I made. This is common with all big pharma companies.