‘No-See’ Docs Will Talk To Reps At CME Meetings
7 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // September 7th, 2010 // 8:02 am
Here’s a reason to expect drugmakers to lust after continuing medical education. A new survey finds that 71 percent of doctors who absolutely refuse to see pharma sales reps will break down and interact with them or attend presentations sponsored by drugmakers while at a CME event.
“It’s all about personal choice and about being in the mindset,” says Sam Bishop, research director at Pri-Med, a CME provider that surveyed about 1,100 mostly primary care physicians at seven different CME events last spring. “They’re open, in these situations, to gathering information.” Of course, Pri-Med has a vested interest in publicizing the findings - it heightens the value CME has to pharma.
That said, how likely are these docs to make use of what they hear in these settings? The survey found that 40 percent of the so-called ‘no-see’ docs will do so after attending an industry-sponsored presentation and 19 percent will incorporate the info after kibbitzing with a rep.
Darshan
In light of the various fines and CIAs that have occurred in the recent past with pharma, pharma needs to be careful as to how they use this information.
While access to the physicians may get easier by framing meetings as “CME events”, the FDA would not look too kindly if pharma companies used these meetings, where off label discussions can take place, merely to advocate for the use of their drugs.
It is important for the industry to draw a distinction between CMEs and advertising events and demonstrate to the FDA and physicians that they can responsibly meet the expectations of the FDA and not breach the trust of healthcare providers who may come to these meetings expecting a scientific discussion only to be exposed to an advertising pitch.
( http://www.conformlaw.com )
pharmavet
There is absolutely no need for any sort of advertising or promotion of ethical pharmaceutical or biotech products. Period. End of story.
Frank Giramonti
Any medication prescribed must be in the best interest of the patient for that specific treatment! Any other reason needs to be looked at through an ethical and/or criminal investigation. There is enough technology that each state medical board can review the prescibing practices of all physicians.
We know marketing works, but the burden of proof of ethical behavior(prescibing)needs to be on the physician.
Nathan
Let me get this strait: Doctors cannot talk to pharma reps at work. They can’t attend talks sponsored by pharma. What’s next: Can they read literature done by industry scientists?
Where *are* doctors supposed to learn about the next generation of pharmaceutical products? Or do we want our doctors stuck in the 19th century?
pharmavet
I would see a rep at a meeting booth, although the attraction may be the delicious smoothies that they’re making for me rather than the message.
Brad
As Nathan alludes to above, studies sponsored by Pharma are a problem. One way to ameliorate the problem is to insist on publication of their database online. This would allow unbiased review of the data.
Salmon
Many people have suggested access to the raw data however I believe that this will have a minimal impact. For even when information and data is available now, it is rarely examined critically.
Salmon