Comments on: Schering-Plough Discriminated Against Some Docs?

By: harpy

harpy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:54:27 +0000

ha! Good point! And, yes, I did mean SP.

By: Condor

Condor — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:16:58 +0000

Hey Harpy — I think we both agree that PhRMA barely allows the ice cream thing — and that the NEW ADVAMED code “probably” does not.

You mentioned AZ, but I think you mean SP. And, yes information is exchanged at the booth, but pages 3 and 4 of Section 2 seem not to allow (1) off-site “dining” — and seem not to allow “dine and dash”. . . . Viz:

. . . .Any such meals offered in connection with informational presentations made by field sales representatives or their immediate managers should also be limited to in-office or in-hospital settings. . . .

Offering “take-out” meals or meals to be eaten without a company representative being present (such as “dine & dash” programs) is not appropriate. . . .

So, I guess I thought the greatest chance of it being PhRMA code “kosher” (forgive me!) would be that it is plainly a NON-branded item — a melting “tchotchke” with no logo — and one that disappears as you walk away with it (even if you don’t eat it all).

In any event, I think the intent of both codes is to move away from this sort of practice.

Okay — I’ll shut up now.

Namaste

By: harpy

harpy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:01:57 +0000

Hi Condor - I think it’s interesting that you reference Section 10 of the PhRMA Code in this situation. Since it’s ice cream we’re talking about, I might have referred instead to Section 2 - Informational Presentations and Meals - but neither one is very satisfactory. The whole idea of booths is something of a black hole in PhRMA and AdvaMed guidelines - are they educational presentations or marketing? The fact that AZ was giving ice cream away at all means they must think it falls under the “meal” section, or they’d be openly admitting to not following PhRMA guidelines on tchotchkes.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:29:27 +0000

p.s. Admit it. How many of you have had the thought that if you didn’t donate–or kept/used the gift without donating–you would probably get the disease?

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:20:31 +0000

Wow. Somehow the image of a condor referencing “tchotkes” widens my wing span….

If anyone interested, the “classic” paper on the social psych. of gifts to docs is:

Katz, Dana.
Caplan, Arthur L.
Merz, Jon F.
All Gifts Large and Small: Toward an Understanding of the Ethics of Pharmaceutical Industry Gift Giving
The American Journal of Bioethics - Volume 3, Number 3, Summer 2003, pp. 39-46

Ironically, or not, some of the authors have themselves received gifts as “ethics consultants.”

So it goes…..

By: Condor

Condor — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:11:28 +0000

Not to belabor the obvious problems with Chris’s analogy to the use, by charities, of give-aways (to increase donations), but. . .

(1) charities are not selling an entirely opaque good;

(2) The NYT guy isn’t opining on potentially dangerous medicines — things that cannot, by definition, be placed in the hands of a consumer without expert intervention;

(3) More precisely, charities are NOT “selling” something that has equal potentials — one, potentially lethal, if misprescribed — the other potential, to cure, if all goes well; and the coup de grace. . .

(4) as JiM mentions immediately above, it increases donations. That is, do we really want to increase prescriptions (in a linear fashion) this way — with ice cream and tchotchkes? I think not.

I’ll take peer-reviewed journal debate, any day.

Namaste [Hey! -- that ryhmes!]

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:45:11 +0000

Just fyi, studies show that those small gifts from charities _do_ make a difference in terms of donation. The fact that the NYT ethics guy commented upon it makes the psychological point. Charities, like companies, know what they’re doing.

This just a personal hunch, but address stickers have probably run their course in terms of donation efficacy. Will probably have to move on to pens or teddy bears.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:34:45 +0000

I’m the Chris with a comment on 10/22 at 6:24 pm

I’m surprised that most comments subsequent to mine focussed on the “ghostwriter” part (because I admit, it wasn’t exactly “on the subject”). What I meant is YES, grad students, pharma company personnel and people paid by pharma companies collect, analyze and write up alot (most) of the clinical and related studies that are on KOLs CVs. I have worked as a scientist in the pharma industry and have written many manuscripts where the first author is someone else (although I am also an author). But ALL authors have input — some choose to just correct the grammer and some choose to get more involved, but nothing is published that ALL investigators (those deemed to have had a major contribution to the study) don’t agree to. I agree that if medical writers are involved and are not listed as an “author” they should be mentioned in the acknowledgements or somewhere — but very little would be published if the KOLs had to do it all on their own!

More on the actual subject — how many of you have received a “free gift” from a charity in the mail (usually return address stickers) and have used them but not given to the charity? I do it all the time — and the “Ethics” guy at the NYT says it’s OK! I am not at all influenced by the free gift but I use it anyway.

By: ROSE

ROSE — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:57:57 +0000

O.K. Wall Street can give their corporate moguls Billions in free gifts etc. why can we not give our docs a pen or a lunch?? Go figure!!! Wall Street is not giving us any solutions to illnesses, pharma is and the docs are. Why the hypocritical attitude and forbid a free lunch for the docs. Oh common; what is going on here call me ignorant. My docs were happy to talk to me over a lunch or cup of Starbucks.

By: Condor

Condor — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:37:26 +0000

Guys, the rules you seek to draft (tongue in cheek), effectively already exist, and they apply nationally — via the PhRMA Guidelines (amended as of January 1, 2009) — to which practically every public pharma co. “claims” to adhere:

I linked it earlier, up-thread, but here it is, in context — PhRMA Guidelines Section 10:

10 Prohibition of Non-Educational and
Practice-Related Items

. . .Providing items for healthcare professionals’ use that do not advance disease or treatment education — even if they are practice-related items of minimal value (such as pens, note pads, mugs and similar “reminder” items with company or product logos) — may foster misperceptions that company interactions with healthcare professionals are not based on informing them about medical and scientific issues. Such non-educational items should not be offered to healthcare professionals or members of their staff, even if they are accompanied by patient or physician educational materials.

Items intended for the personal benefit of healthcare professionals (such as floral arrangements, artwork, music CDs or tickets to a sporting event) likewise should not be offered. . . .

Now, the even tougher code is the ADVAMED Code, as amended, effective July 1, 2009:

. . . .A Company may not give Health Care Professionals any type of non-educational branded promotional items, even if the item is of minimal value and related to the Health Care
Professional’s work or for the benefit of patients. Examples of non-educational branded promotional items include pens, notepads, mugs, and other items that have a Company’s name, logo, or the name or logo of one of its Medical Technologies. Companies also may not provide Health Care Professionals with gifts such as cookies, wine, flowers, chocolates, gift baskets, holiday gifts or cash or cash equivalents. . . . .

Namaste