| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"ekrubmeg" |
| Date: |
04 Jun 2007 05:26:16 PM |
| Object: |
Doctors are "Rewarded" to perscribe new (and expensive) drugs |
Doctors still Chummie with Drug Sales Reps
"There's a big bucket of money sitting in every office=B7=B7=B7 every time
you go in, you reach your hand in the bucket and grab a handful." =B7
that's how a sales manager at Astra Zeneca described to colleagues the
rewards of pitching the Company's products to doctors. His unguarded
remarks show up on the Internet -- -- and got him fired, as economy
confirmed -- -- just as new storm is brewing over tactics drugmakers
used to influence doctors prescribing habits.=B7 space bar a two-year
senate finance committee investigation, for example, has concluded
that the companies, by funding continuing medical education programs
for doctors, have been able to "increase their market for new
products" and to illegally promote off -- label use of their drugs.
The committees is concerned that persuading doctors prescribe the
newest, costliest drugs hikes government spending for Medicare and
raises safety issues. =B7 the drug industry in 2002 issued its own code
of conduct declaring the interactions between sales reps and doctors
should benefit patient and then meals -- -- but not entertainment --
-- are all bowl is modest the connected to educational presentations.
Today, 94 percent of the doctors reported a relationship with drug
reps, according to a survey he led by Harvard Medical School and
published in April 26 New England Journal of Medicine. The
interactions range from receiving drug samples (70 percent) to getting
free meals (83 percent) and expenses for attending-just sponsored
meetings (35 percent). =B7 the authors of a second study wrote in the
public library of sciences April medical journal that the "reps scour
a doctors office for object -- -- a tennis racket, Russian novels, '"I
70s rock music" -- -- to establish personal ties, and give doctors
food in gifts. By Patricia Barry AARP Bulletin June 2007
.
|
|
| User: "mimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Doctors are "Rewarded" to perscribe new (and expensive) drugs |
04 Jun 2007 08:25:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:26:16 +0000, ekrubmeg wrote:
Doctors still Chummie with Drug Sales Reps
"There's a big bucket of money sitting in every office··· every time
you go in, you reach your hand in the bucket and grab a handful." ·
that's how a sales manager at Astra Zeneca described to colleagues the
rewards of pitching the Company's products to doctors. His unguarded
remarks show up on the Internet -- -- and got him fired, as economy
confirmed -- -- just as new storm is brewing over tactics drugmakers
used to influence doctors prescribing habits.· space bar a two-year
senate finance committee investigation, for example, has concluded
that the companies, by funding continuing medical education programs
for doctors, have been able to "increase their market for new
products" and to illegally promote off -- label use of their drugs.
The committees is concerned that persuading doctors prescribe the
newest, costliest drugs hikes government spending for Medicare and
raises safety issues. · the drug industry in 2002 issued its own code
of conduct declaring the interactions between sales reps and doctors
should benefit patient and then meals -- -- but not entertainment --
-- are all bowl is modest the connected to educational presentations.
Today, 94 percent of the doctors reported a relationship with drug
reps, according to a survey he led by Harvard Medical School and
published in April 26 New England Journal of Medicine. The
interactions range from receiving drug samples (70 percent) to getting
free meals (83 percent) and expenses for attending-just sponsored
meetings (35 percent). · the authors of a second study wrote in the
public library of sciences April medical journal that the "reps scour
a doctors office for object -- -- a tennis racket, Russian novels, '"I
70s rock music" -- -- to establish personal ties, and give doctors
food in gifts. By Patricia Barry AARP Bulletin June 2007
Given a choice between a research project to develop a one-shot cure for a
disease and a (perhaps slightly easier) project to develop a palliative
that you have to take once a day for the rest of your life instead, which
do you think the pharmaceutical industry will choose?
And quite obviously the great and loftily-moral AMA has no great objection
to such goings-on.
--
When was the last time you heard an American politician
use the word "plutocracy"?
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|