As a physician, I saw how the pharmaceutical representatives would buy lunches to get doctors to listen to their sales promotions. Often times this occurred in a group practice setting of several doctors. Then, if the group as a whole, liked what the representative said about the brand-name drugs and began to prescribe them regularly, th…
As a physician, I saw how the pharmaceutical representatives would buy lunches to get doctors to listen to their sales promotions. Often times this occurred in a group practice setting of several doctors. Then, if the group as a whole, liked what the representative said about the brand-name drugs and began to prescribe them regularly, then occasionally there would be off-site meetings at popular restaurants and all of the doctors of that group would be invited to join. When a pharmaceutical company launched a new medication, or needed to promote a new medication, sometimes they would offer a group practice the chance to attend a conference and pay "consulting" fees to the physicians to get their ideas about the medication. However, in defense of the doctors, most would not prescribe a medication, which they did not feel would be superior to what they were already using, or would not continue to prescribe it, if they did not feel it was effective or disliked the side effects they saw in their patients.
The laws changed a few years ago, limiting these practices, and limits what the representatives are allowed to say about their medications. For instance, they cannot refer to off-label use of their medications.
Currently, if a physician receives a free lunch from a pharmaceutical representative, he or she must be listed as having received this gift. I suggest we extend this law to our Federal regulators in the medical bureaucracy and make laws that if the regulator receives gifts from a pharmaceutical company, the regulator cannot vote on a panel determining approval of a specific drug.
As a physician, I saw how the pharmaceutical representatives would buy lunches to get doctors to listen to their sales promotions. Often times this occurred in a group practice setting of several doctors. Then, if the group as a whole, liked what the representative said about the brand-name drugs and began to prescribe them regularly, then occasionally there would be off-site meetings at popular restaurants and all of the doctors of that group would be invited to join. When a pharmaceutical company launched a new medication, or needed to promote a new medication, sometimes they would offer a group practice the chance to attend a conference and pay "consulting" fees to the physicians to get their ideas about the medication. However, in defense of the doctors, most would not prescribe a medication, which they did not feel would be superior to what they were already using, or would not continue to prescribe it, if they did not feel it was effective or disliked the side effects they saw in their patients.
The laws changed a few years ago, limiting these practices, and limits what the representatives are allowed to say about their medications. For instance, they cannot refer to off-label use of their medications.
Currently, if a physician receives a free lunch from a pharmaceutical representative, he or she must be listed as having received this gift. I suggest we extend this law to our Federal regulators in the medical bureaucracy and make laws that if the regulator receives gifts from a pharmaceutical company, the regulator cannot vote on a panel determining approval of a specific drug.
No longer the casual observer. You are now an eye witness of the well organized bribery.
1986 was a turning point for the "patient", with Doc/Nurse hovering over, injection completed.
Huh...wonder how well this stuff really works? Oh well.....cha-ching....