Comments on: NJ AG: Clampdown On Pharma Influence On Docs

By: harpy

harpy — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:52:17 +0000

I just realized this proposal puts the onus of reporting on the doctor rather than on industry. Nice.

By: harpy

harpy — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:19:35 +0000

@ Confucius - the federal bill keeps changing as it gets passed around. The last time I was really paying attention, they said it would preempt state law for similar provisions, but not where states are stricter.

Anyone know if that’s still the case?

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:07:05 +0000

Paul,… Id like to see Senator Baucus lose his Chairmanship.Where is the outrage, oh I forgot hes not a Republican. What he did was worse then Clinton’s oral sex escapade!!

By: doc

doc — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:56:12 +0000

After 30+ years on the promotional/selling side of pharma, it is obvious to me that the model is broken.

The dollars spent on food, honorarium all targeted by IMS Rx data to high prescribers has the business corrupted.

Remember, your average sales rep is a business major or communications major with virtually no science background other than what their company provides. If you think the training departments of big pharma are unbiased or have well qualified people doing the training, you’re asleep. Most of the training department are staffed by reps that were willing to move to their home office.

I hope all states adopt something like the NJ proposed model. Doctors are much more influenced than they think by reps.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:40:01 +0000

And how about Bauchus, the champion senator of disclosure who did not disclose that he was dating a woman he recommended for a big appointment?

Talk about hypocrisy.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:37:18 +0000

I am all for transparency but has to be everyone. It´s good that they are asking doctors to also disclose. We also need for politicians, industry critics, and editors of medical journals to disclose.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:19:28 +0000

I will be for this if the same rules are put in place at the federal and state level for lobbyists which we all know will never happen since politicans are all hypocrites.

By: Elaine

Elaine — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:43:30 +0000

What about transparency from the nonprofits? You know, the tax-exempts industry funds to lobby, write policy and bless products?

By: Evelyn Pringle

Evelyn Pringle — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:12:59 +0000

I predict that this AG will soon be offered a “promotion” to a high position in the Justice Department to get her out of Pharma’s hair in New Jersey.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:25:54 +0000

I don’t think you get it Jim S. I know who gives legislators money- they have to list it in their campaign filings and PAC filings. As well the lobbyists have to register who they give money to and who they are working on behalf of…Physicians are the first line of prescribers- and unlike my insurer were you have to turn over a formulary to me so I know you got a deal on numbers 1, 2 and 3 and those are the drugs you are pushing… as my doctor, I have no idea that you only prescribe Seroquel because you like the AZ rep, you are on their speaker to speaker and you do their Doc to Doc live video chat… or it may be that you believe that is the best drug out there regardless- either way the conflicts should be there for me to see and decide. No one said you can’t do the train the trainer or a gizillion CMEs for AstraZeneca but your patients should be able to access the information. The physician has all the education and writes the prescription but the patient gets the side effects and takes all the risk.