Free lunch

[EMH]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I thought one of the perks of being a physician has always been that there is someone who wants to buy you lunch. I heard from a PhD lecturer today that their is either a new ethics law or a new interpretation of an old law or something that is going to make it more difficult for drug reps, departments, etc to feed us lunch. He wasn't very clear and left me confused and worried about my future free lunches.

Anyone know anything about this?

 

[FinchHead]

WTF?!? The only reason I am going into med is the free lunches...

there goes 2 years down the drain

 

[CigarTragic]

either a new ethics law or a new interpretation of an old law or something that is going to make it more difficult for drug reps, departments, etc to feed us lunch. He wasn't very clear and left me confused and worried about my future free lunches.

ZOMG!!!1!! Not the free lunches! If thats the case, screw this physician crap. If Botox nose-job boob-job Heidi from DrugPharmaMegaCorp cant hook me up with Panera Bread lunches and fruit platters every other Wednesday, being a doctor just isnt worth it.

 

[jamo0001]

.

 

[AppTrail]

I thought one of the perks of being a physician has always been that there is someone who wants to buy you lunch. I heard from a PhD lecturer today that their is either a new ethics law or a new interpretation of an old law or something that is going to make it more difficult for drug reps, departments, etc to feed us lunch. He wasn't very clear and left me confused and worried about my future free lunches.

Anyone know anything about this?

BOO HOO

First of all, don't believe everything you hear. Second, think through this logically, why would anyone make a law against it? Where's the harm? Also, drug companies are private, so they can do whatever the hell they want w/ their money

 

[Law2Doc]

BOO HOO

First of all, don't believe everything you hear. Second, think through this logically, why would anyone make a law against it? Where's the harm? Also, drug companies are private, so they can do whatever the hell they want w/ their money

Agree. There is no such law. It's called marketing and is common business practice in every industry. There are, however, an increasing number of hospitals making internal policies against accepting lunches and other give-aways from drug reps, because of concerns that doctors will feel indebted to big pharma. So at more and more hospitals it may be harder to get that free lunch.

 

[ZipsPwn]

ZOMG!!!1!! Not the free lunches! If thats the case, screw this physician crap. If Botox nose-job boob-job Heidi from DrugPharmaMegaCorp cant hook me up with Panera Bread lunches and fruit platters every other Wednesday, being a doctor just isnt worth it.

👍😍

 

[TheWowEffect]

I thought one of the perks of being a physician has always been that there is someone who wants to buy you lunch. I heard from a PhD lecturer today that their is either a new ethics law or a new interpretation of an old law or something that is going to make it more difficult for drug reps, departments, etc to feed us lunch. He wasn't very clear and left me confused and worried about my future free lunches.

Anyone know anything about this?

The voices tell me that it's a conspiracy by all these PhD types to deprive the doctors their weekly fix of Risperdal laced popcorn and soda

 

[Slide]

Damn I was relying on those free lunches to trim off some costs in my budget. Alas, there are always the free lunch seminars about some science research I'll never be able to appreciate. Maybe.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Individual states are starting to pass laws about this. Here's an article about such a law in MN.

Other states are considering some sort of mandatory reporting of these types of things.

To the poster who suggested that these things are "harmless", they are not. Pharma actually tracks exactly what prescriptions each individual physician prescribes. Turns out that the pharmacies, in order to make money, sell this data back to the pharm companies. They then go to your office, give you "lunch and a talk", and then watch to see if they make a difference in your prescribing. If so, more lunches. If not, you go hungry.

Basically, there ain't no free lunch. If you don't believe me, ask these guys: www.nofreelunch.org

 

[Tired]

To the poster who suggested that these things are "harmless", they are not. Pharma actually tracks exactly what prescriptions each individual physician prescribes. Turns out that the pharmacies, in order to make money, sell this data back to the pharm companies. They then go to your office, give you "lunch and a talk", and then watch to see if they make a difference in your prescribing. If so, more lunches. If not, you go hungry.

Basically, there ain't no free lunch. If you don't believe me, ask these guys: www.nofreelunch.org

So basically one of two things is happening here:

1) Doctors alter their prescribing habits in order to earn free lunches

or

2) Drug reps provide good data and information that educates patients on new products

Which one do you think is more likely, doctor?

 

[EMH]

I understand the problem but still.... I am one of those guys who will always find the free lunch.

Even as an M1 I manage to find my way to a free lunch two or three times a week. I'm getting hooked early.

 

[LegacyDoctress]

My school recently gave a seminar concerning this issue...they shared this article. It's long, but its worth it. Trust me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?ref=health

 

[EMH]

My school recently gave a seminar concerning this issue...they shared this article. It's long, but its worth it. Trust me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?ref=health

The link requires a login, I'd like to read it if you can post a different link.

EDIT: Nevermind I figured it out, here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?ref=health

You've got the same problem we do here, if you cut and paste a link out of your webmail it doesn't do it properly.

 

[LegacyDoctress]

Thanks for correcting that...I never knew that. 😉

 

[NonTradMed]

Free lunch works to bias doctors to prescribe for the meds that the pharm companies want them to prescribe...if only by making their products more readily available in the doctor's minds.

I'm sure if that wasn't the case, then BigPharm wouldn't be supplying the free lunches. As the saying goes, there is no 'free' lunch. The lunch is paid for by the patients who buy the drugs prescribed by the doctors. How this affects patients' health, I'm not sure. I don't know if there's been any studies done which showed negative outcomes for patients.

 

[Law2Doc]

Individual states are starting to pass laws about this. Here's an article about such a law in MN.

Other states are considering some sort of mandatory reporting of these types of things.

The MN law is currently unique, and most likely has constitutional problems if the drug companies choose to challenge it. It's not really the place of states to pass this kind of law-- this is something that ought to be in individual hospital policies (or not), not legislation. I mean why should I, as a MN lawyer who gets many free gifts, lunches and whatnot from process server, legal document binding/prep and transcription companies, etc, get to vote that doctors cannot get free lunches from drug companies? It is an improper use of legislation (albeit for a noble purpose).

It really should be on the doctors to avoid feeling indebted to big pharm and selling out their patients. That is what a self regulating profession is supposed to do. If they are afraid of temptation, they need to pass internal rules (hospital or medical office policies) to limit or inhibit drug rep access. This whole abdicating professional regulation to the state is a hugely negative thing for physicians who are giving up control of their own profession to joe sixpack who doesn't like the idea of rich doctors getting free stuff. Regardless of where you come down on the pharmaceutical perq issue, as a future physician you should be up in arms about the loss of autonomy of the profession in MN. A self regulating profession that doesn't get to self regulate isn't a profession for long.

 

[EMH]

Why not just block the pharmacys from selling the doctor's prescribing practices to the drug companies.

 

[Law2Doc]

Why not just block the pharmacys from selling the doctor's prescribing practices to the drug companies.

It would have to be done on a federal and international level -- the majority of pharmacies are national chains and the majority of pharmaceutical industry players aren't American. Doctors and states have no control over this.

 

[EMH]

It would have to be done on a federal and international level -- the majority of pharmacies are national chains and the majority of pharmaceutical industry players aren't American. Doctors and states have no control over this.

With the current push to completely eliminate drug rep lunches doesn't this seem like a more moderate solution to the problem that fixes most of the ethical conflicts? I must admit when I first heard that the drug reps know how much of each drug doctor x prescribes I was a bit shocked.

 

[Twitch]

The OP's question typically leads to the scenario described below:

What if the drugs to treat an ailment can be equally well treated using a variety of drugs. No ethical doctor knowingly will prescribe a drug that has more adverse side effects or has less efficacy. So it comes down to this. Between a potpourri of say 5 different pills to choose from, all with similar side effects, similar class of drugs, all to treat the same thing, which one do you choose.

Now suppose there was no pharma reps or any other type of advertising. You randomly pick one drug from the list of 5. It seems to work for your pt's so you stick to that one drug, even though there are a 4 others FDA approved ones that work just as well but you never ever wrote scrips for them. So now profits (a tiny tiny portion of it) of one pharm company are increasing unfairly among it's peers. Not that their product is any better than the others, but just because you happen to choose it randomly.

Which brings us to advertising. Consider television advertising. Why is it that you "pay"for commercial free programming such as HBO, whereas OTA like NBC/ABC/etc. are "free" to speak off. Are they really free though? No, advertisers help offset the costs. Why? Because in a free market economy like ours, advertising & marketing is an essential tool. Can't we get that product (drug) information elsewhere? Sure. So let's say we lexi it, or UTD it and see the list of drugs that treat a particular ailment. According to the literature they are equally effective, are FDA approved, same class of drugs, with similar side effects. Which one will you choose? Does it really matter at this point?

There is no free lunch, but there is no free TV either (say hello to commercials - yeah you can Tivo it, but the box isn't free). So you got it at a BF deal with a MIR that technically makes it free right? 🙂

 

[Law2Doc]

The OP's question typically leads to the scenario described below:

What if the drugs to treat an ailment can be equally well treated using a variety of drugs. No ethical doctor knowingly will prescribe a drug that has more adverse side effects or has less efficacy. So it comes down to this. Between a potpourri of say 5 different pills to choose from, all with similar side effects, similar class of drugs, all to treat the same thing, which one do you choose.

Now suppose there was no pharma reps or any other type of advertising. You randomly pick one drug from the list of 5. It seems to work for your pt's so you stick to that one drug, even though there are a 4 others FDA approved ones that work just as well but you never ever wrote scrips for them. So now profits (a tiny tiny portion of it) of one pharm company are increasing unfairly among it's peers. Not that their product is any better than the others, but just because you happen to choose it randomly.

Which brings us to advertising. Consider television advertising. Why is it that you "pay"for commercial free programming such as HBO, whereas OTA like NBC/ABC/etc. are "free" to speak off. Are they really free though? No, advertisers help offset the costs. Why? Because in a free market economy like ours, advertising & marketing is an essential tool. Can't we get that product (drug) information elsewhere? Sure. So let's say we lexi it, or UTD it and see the list of drugs that treat a particular ailment. According to the literature they are equally effective, are FDA approved, same class of drugs, with similar side effects. Which one will you choose? Does it really matter at this point?

There is no free lunch, but there is no free TV either (say hello to commercials - yeah you can Tivo it, but the box isn't free). So you got it at a BF deal with a MIR that technically makes it free right? 🙂

I actually think patients were better off when the drug companies directly communicated to doctors (through luncheons etc) because the doctor has at least some semblance of ability to evaluate drug company claims. These days, patients show up having see a TV commercial which tells them to "ask their doctor if drug XYZ might be right for" them. The patient shows up already asking for a drug by name, but without someone with a medical background having evaluated the med. Leads to uninformed prescribing. The best solution would be to have doctors get to do the lunches, hear and evaluate hte claims, and be expected to truly evaluate whether the med is a good idea for the patient. No idea how you regulate this, but it's not the drug companies that are the bad guys here, it is the handful of lazy doctors whose integrity can be bought with a sandwich.

That's assuming arguendo such doctors even exist -- there isn't good evidence that the drug companies that put on the lunches aren't also pushing the better products -- just that they are getting prescribed a lot more. Hard to villify this. Honestly, if the presentation during the lunch is compelling, the doctors really ought to be hearing it, and it might even be a disservice to patients not to let the lunch happen. (Sure they can do it without free food, but there would be no attendance).

In every other profession, product and service providers market their good through lunches. Business lunches and pitch meetings are a norm in corporate america. I was taken out to lunches by accountants, appraisers, etc. Sometimes I referred my clients to these guys, sometimes I didn't. But it's part of business, and simply good marketing. The onus was on me as to whether I was doing what was right for my clients and I took that seriously. It's a bit sad that physicians are perceived as having less ability to see beyond the pitch and are more willing to sell out their patients than every other industry. If so many people in medicine are, if left to their own devices, going to act unethically the answer isn't to ban the drug company, but to banish those unethical individuals. It's very garden of eden -- the serpent may have dangled fruit in front of adam and eve, but it was adam and eve who chose to partake and got cast out accordingly.

 

[linuxizer]

To the poster who suggested that these things are "harmless", they are not. Pharma actually tracks exactly what prescriptions each individual physician prescribes. Turns out that the pharmacies, in order to make money, sell this data back to the pharm companies.

It turns out that pharmacies are only allowed to sell the prescribing habits according to undecipherable DEA numbers. Three guesses as to who sells the list to get from DEA numbers to physicians' names?

For those of you who think that physicians are capable of being entirely unbiased with regards to drug reps, there's a recent PLoS paper about the techniques reps use.

Physicians pretty universally think they're immune to it:
Chew LD, O'Young TS, Hazlet TK, Bradley KA, Maynard C, et al. (2000) A physician survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians' behavior. J Gen Intern Med 15: 478–483.

But they're pretty universally not:
Adair RF, Holmgren LR (2005) Do drug samples influence resident prescribing behavior? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Med 118: 881–884.

Bottom line: Do you really think that pharma pours nearly a billion dollars every year into 'detailing' because it's ineffective? Do you really think that a drug rep is better able to objectively evalulate the literature on a drug due to to their extensive handful of weeks of (company-funded) education? Do you really think that detailing doesn't push physicians to prescribe new drugs with limited safety track records over far cheaper generics with decades of safety evidence?

--Ari

 

[Law2Doc]

It turns out that pharmacies are only allowed to sell the prescribing habits according to undecipherable DEA numbers. Three guesses as to who sells the list to get from DEA numbers to physicians' names?

For those of you who think that physicians are capable of being entirely unbiased with regards to drug reps, there's a recent PLoS paper about the techniques reps use.

Physicians pretty universally think they're immune to it:
Chew LD, O'Young TS, Hazlet TK, Bradley KA, Maynard C, et al. (2000) A physician survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians' behavior. J Gen Intern Med 15: 478–483.

But they're pretty universally not:
Adair RF, Holmgren LR (2005) Do drug samples influence resident prescribing behavior? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Med 118: 881–884.

Bottom line: Do you really think that pharma pours nearly a billion dollars every year into 'detailing' because it's ineffective? Do you really think that a drug rep is better able to objectively evalulate the literature on a drug due to to their extensive handful of weeks of (company-funded) education? Do you really think that detailing doesn't push physicians to prescribe new drugs with limited safety track records over far cheaper generics with decades of safety evidence?

--Ari

Again, the fact that physicians prescribe things marketed to them by pharmaceuticals still doesn't mean they still aren't doing what's best for their patients. That's the flaw of these studies -- unless doctors are being pitched and using inferior products, it doesn't really mean they are abdicating their duties. And certainly none of these studies suggest that it's better when patients are advertised directly to, as they are through TV these days. Best if a medically educated person hears the pitch rather than someone showing up to the doctor's office asking for a med by name.

Every other profession is directly marketed to by someone, and every other profession is expected to put their client's/patient's interest first. It's pretty sad that physicians, who on average have more education than any other field, are felt to be less capable of maintaining their integrity. As a lawyer I had folks trying to have me use their products, services for my clients all the time, and have tons of coffee mugs, pens and had plenty of free lunches. But I didn't use most of these companies, unless it was in my clients' best interest. I'm not sure what it is about med school that supposedly will make someone cave in to marketing pressure more willingly than eg law school. But if that's the case then you fix it by adding some sort of patient ethics course to med school.

 

[linuxizer]

Again, the fact that physicians prescribe things marketed to them by pharmaceuticals still doesn't mean they still aren't doing what's best for their patients. That's the flaw of these studies -- unless doctors are being pitched and using inferior products, it doesn't really mean they are abdicating their duties. And certainly none of these studies suggest that it's better when patients are advertised directly to, as they are through TV these days. Best if a medically educated person hears the pitch rather than someone showing up to the doctor's office asking for a med by name.

Every other profession is directly marketed to by someone, and every other profession is expected to put their client's/patient's interest first.

It's not either-or. Direct-to-consumer advertising is its own issue, although it's hard to imagine a ban on detailing without one on DTC as well. That difference gets at a difference between other professions and medicine, though. Physicians' salaries don't account for the lion's share of health care costs, but physicians nevertheless control the majority of health care spending. By contrast, my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong...I'm genuinely interested) is that most of the costs of litigation are lawyer's fees.

As far as inferior products winning out over superior ones goes, given the above paragraph I'm not sure that's actually the right question, although there are plenty of anecdotes in which this happens. I think a better version of the question is whether or not physicians are directing a large proportion of spending of other people's money to drugs not shown to be better than generics, and that is obviously happening (Nexium is one oft-touted example).

Think costs don't matter, that they're always borne by someone else? If as a society we want people to be insured and we want less insurance company interference in medical decision-making, then medical decision-making needs to be less influenced by advertising.

--Ari

 

[barasch]

For a second I thought that someone had started this thread to preach against the free lunches that I collect and distribute through the interest clubs at school.

What a relief.

I hope that we can all set aside our differences about big pharm and agree that free lunches, as long as they leave your ethical faculties intact, are good.

 

[EMH]

For a second I thought that someone had started this thread to preach against the free lunches that I collect and distribute through the interest clubs at school.

What a relief.

I hope that we can all set aside our differences about big pharm and agree that free lunches, as long as they leave your ethical faculties intact, are good.

barasch for president!!!

 

[Tired]

This is all such a load. Free lunches influencing prescription practices? Hah.

You know what really impacts prescribing practices: what your facility has on formulary. Do you know how many times I want to give a specific fluoroquinolone or beta-blocker for a specific reason, but get stuck giving the "formulary alternative" because that company cut the best deal with the hospital?

But no big uproar there, right? How come all the self-righteous freaks who roam this board aren't flipping out that cost, and cost alone dictates which antihypertensive I can give my patients? But you tools will begrudge me a free sandwich once a week . . .

 

[Smurfette]

This is all such a load. Free lunches influencing prescription practices? Hah.

You know what really impacts prescribing practices: what your facility has on formulary. Do you know how many times I want to give a specific fluoroquinolone or beta-blocker for a specific reason, but get stuck giving the "formulary alternative" because that company cut the best deal with the hospital?

But no big uproar there, right? How come all the self-righteous freaks who roam this board aren't flipping out that cost, and cost alone dictates which antihypertensive I can give my patients? But you tools will begrudge me a free sandwich once a week . . .

Soooo true.

Frankly, it's nice to periodically hear about a new drug that is just coming out that might fill a hole in my prescribing armamentarium....but I am at the mercy of my hospital's formulary. That's where the real shady deals come into play with the drug companies and hospital administration.

just because I get a free lunch does not mean I will use that drug instead of another, because I believe a patient should get the right drug for them, not the drug that I got a free pen (which will die prematurely anyhow) and a sandwich from yesterday's drug rep lunch.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Ahh, so many things to respond to. Where to start?

So basically one of two things is happening here:

1) Doctors alter their prescribing habits in order to earn free lunches

or

2) Drug reps provide good data and information that educates patients on new products

Which one do you think is more likely, doctor?

Neither, actually.

As mentioned a bit earlier in this thread, most of the competition is not around something being superior to something else. I mean, they didn't really need to advertise Viagra very much when it first came out, did they? Most of the advertising is trying to convince you to use something equivalent, but usually more expensive than a generic alternative. Reps provide biased data / opinions, and often try to disguise it as unbiased fact.

Three guesses as to who sells the list to get from DEA numbers to physicians' names?

Don't get me started about the AMA.

You know what really impacts prescribing practices: what your facility has on formulary.

Absoultely true on the inpatient wards. And do you think that the people who decide these things get sandwiches from the reps? Often their gifts are much more impressive -- trips, golf, etc.

Getting your drug on an inpatient forumlary is very important, because it often determines what drug the patient is discharged on -- downstream income!

-------

One new thought:

The most concerning part of this whole process is assuming that as a physician, I can determine what data to believe and what not. As has been discussed in the media and elsewhere, most consensus statements, large studies, and other data sources are written/organized by physicians who have close financial ties to the pharm industry. Data are presented, in the journals we trust, in such a way as to make the drug look as good as possible. Side effects are minimized.

The current lipid guidelines suggest a target LDL of 70 for anyone with diabetes. Essentially all of the authors of this guideline receive huge amounts of money from the companies that make the statins. Is this based on real data, or is this just statin companies stretching the data to increase their sales? Although I am no expert in this area, the data are somewhat mixed, and no study specifically targeted an LDL of 70. In fact, all studies of intensive therapy ended up with an average LDL in the intensive group above 70 (and since this is an average, 50% of results were higher).

I honestly am not sure what to believe.

 

[realgraverobber]

I thought one of the perks of being a physician has always been that there is someone who wants to buy you lunch. I heard from a PhD lecturer today that their is either a new ethics law or a new interpretation of an old law or something that is going to make it more difficult for drug reps, departments, etc to feed us lunch. He wasn't very clear and left me confused and worried about my future free lunches.

Anyone know anything about this?

This is a really stuipid thread.

 

[mashnuts]

I thought one of the perks of being a physician has always been that there is someone who wants to buy you lunch.

False.

One of the perks of being a physician is always having enough money in your pocket to pay for lunch.

It's a downright exhilarating feeling.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm not sure what it is about med school that supposedly will make someone cave in to marketing pressure more willingly than eg law school. But if that's the case then you fix it by adding some sort of patient ethics course to med school.

Oh god, please don't propose another ethics course.

I think it varies a lot by region, but in California, more schools and academic hospitals are going the no-drug-lunch route. Instead, schools/hospitals are offering to allow drug companies to donate money to non-profs that do charity work. I'd be curious to see how much of a drop-off you have in monies spent.

 

[notdeadyet]

This seems to be a slow evolution. Doctors used to be given free trips to Barbados for their families if they pushed enough of a companies pill. That perk was tossed out and folks freaked, talking about freedom and whatnot.

Looking back now, it seems like a pretty dodgy practice. I'm sure that in 10 years we'll tell med students how pharm folks used to pay use for lunch whenever we needed a meal and the kids'll roll their eyes too.

 

[chicklett1]

This is all such a load. Free lunches influencing prescription practices? Hah.

You know what really impacts prescribing practices: what your facility has on formulary. Do you know how many times I want to give a specific fluoroquinolone or beta-blocker for a specific reason, but get stuck giving the "formulary alternative" because that company cut the best deal with the hospital?

But no big uproar there, right? How come all the self-righteous freaks who roam this board aren't flipping out that cost, and cost alone dictates which antihypertensive I can give my patients? But you tools will begrudge me a free sandwich once a week . . .

I agree that cost dictates drug choices and that is a big problem--decreases access, decreases physician control over treatment options, decreases quality of care.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, though, is that the aggressive marketing of pharmaceuticals (including drug detailing and free gifts to physicians) directly contributes to the cost of drugs. Most drug companies spend more on marketing than on drug discovery and development. Sure, it's expensive to develop new drugs, but in the US the pharmaceutical industry has a profit margin that is orders of magnitude greater than any other industry, and this has tremendously deleterious effects on the everyday dude just trying to keep up with his prescriptions.

Outside of the discussion of whether or not a "no free lunches" policy should exist, physicians should be mindful of the effect that accepting free gifts from Big Pharma will have on affordability of drugs for patients.

 

[Depakote]

Our campus has completely banned drug rep lunches yet I've had Pizza more times than I can count this week.

Something will fill the void, in this case it's the student life office picking up the slack and providing lunch/dinner at various seminars/talks.

 

[dilated]

I think it varies a lot by region, but in California, more schools and academic hospitals are going the no-drug-lunch route.

Blah. Too bad their control ends at their doorstep. Our local Big Name University Hospital has adopted a ban on drug rep food/pens.

Result? Instead of mid-price lunches for the doctors, staff, and (most importantly) med students, the reps take the attendings out for dinner at the most expensive places in town. So I get no lunch, the attendings get a larger sense of indebtedness to the rep, but most importantly the hospital PR looks good. And isn't that all that counts at the end of the day? 👍

 

[sprinkibrio]

Our campus has completely banned drug rep lunches yet I've had Pizza more times than I can count this week.

Something will fill the void, in this case it's the student life office picking up the slack and providing lunch/dinner at various seminars/talks.

Same here. No worries!

 

[cpants]

You know what's hilarious? While we are getting lectured on taking a free slice of pizza from Pfizer, the dental students at our school have already received two free 200 dollar electric toothbrushes (Sonicare and Braun).

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Our campus has completely banned drug rep lunches yet I've had Pizza more times than I can count this week.

Something will fill the void, in this case it's the student life office picking up the slack and providing lunch/dinner at various seminars/talks.

Which means that instead means that your debt-derived tuition and fees monies are going to pay for free lunches that you might not necessarily want to eat.

Further compounding a problem is that pizza, probably one of the most unhealthy foods when eaten on a regular basis, is being served. It angers me that my tuition which is supposed to be spent on improving the quality of my educational experience is spent on lunches that I usually don't attend anyway. (Despite an RSVP policy, many extra lunches are usually at the lunch lectures I goto, meaning wasted money). A lunch lecture costs the school hundreds of dollars. This is not a sum of money to be ignored, especially when it is spent from our tuition-derived budget on a daily basis!

 

[thebeatblitz]

Which means that instead means that your debt-derived tuition and fees monies are going to pay for free lunches that you might not necessarily want to eat.

Further compounding a problem is that pizza, probably one of the most unhealthy foods when eaten on a regular basis, is being served. It angers me that my tuition which is supposed to be spent on improving the quality of my educational experience is spent on lunches that I usually don't attend anyway. (Despite an RSVP policy, many extra lunches are usually at the lunch lectures I goto, meaning wasted money). A lunch lecture costs the school hundreds of dollars. This is not a sum of money to be ignored, especially when it is spent from our tuition-derived budget on a daily basis!

Thank god I'm on all the listservs. Free lunches courstesy of the Postdoc association .