how true is this?

[MDpride]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi

Does medical students get approached by pharm. companies and receive gifts?

 

[pincheeric]

If by gifts you mean an occasional lunch, pen, or some other small item then yes. However, this is only while on clinical rotations when they are actually targeting the attendings and residents.

 

[Doublecortin]

Hi

Does medical students get approached by pharm. companies and receive gifts?

for what?😱

 

[The Angriest Bird]

My school has banned pharm company sales people on campus and hospitals.

 

[CCLCMer]

The Cleveland Clinic has pretty strict Pharm-Free policies, so no, we don't get much in the way of freebies. I've never even seen a drug rep on the campus.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

Most of my stationery / pens / etc. are drug-based. I don't care, they write well, and I save a lot of money on office supplies (well, not for very long thanks to new guidelines), have partaken in many drug lunches/dinners, and many of my books have been donated to me gratis by Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, etc. But, the end of the day, I am not convinced I will write for Lexapro when $4 Celexa is available... and I'll probably use fondaparinux over enoxaparin to avoid HIT... blah blah. "The Medical Letter" is a great publication that helps demystify drugs.

 

[bcat85]

Actually I think a lot of academic hospitals have pharm-free policies.

 

[Tired]

Most of my stationery / pens / etc. are drug-based. I don't care, they write well, and I save a lot of money on office supplies (well, not for very long thanks to new guidelines) . . .

Thank goodness for the device reps, that's all I have to say.

Millions of bucks in fines and Stryker, Synthes, and Medtronix are still falling all over themselves to give us stuff.

 

[Law2Doc]

Hi

Does medical students get approached by pharm. companies and receive gifts?

"Approached" is the wrong word. Pharm companies sponsor luncheon meetings on various topics. At those meetings, free lunch is served and the pharm reps hand out books, pens and other nominal gifts to attendees. And then sometimes give a pitch about their product at the meeting and make themselves available to answer your questions. It's not like they seek you out to give you stuff -- but if you seek out their lunches they will give you stuff. At this point about a third of med schools have gone pharm-free (don't let drug reps come in), so in a fairly short term this issue won't even exist anymore. Instead, pharmaceuticals will divert this kind of ad funding toward patients directly (more TV and print ads), rather than physicians who are actually trained to weigh the information they are given.

 

[koopa_troopa]

for what?😱

For your soul.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

I think the best way to describe it is an attending is a higher priority than you, but you're usually the next highest priority.

We spend a lot of time in private offices so I do get a fair bit of interaction with drug reps (for about a month I had a drug rep lunch every day). They really want to talk to the "real doctor" most of all, but they know that they're busy and sometimes just pop in for a quick bite and the spiel. Occasionally I'd be sent ahead: "This last patient never lets med students in, why don't you go ahead and eat?"

Now, usually the drug rep would just be chatting with the nurses or whatever on nothing, but when I came in I'd usually get the a bit of a press. Often times it was crouched in "Hey, did they teach you about this drug in your pharm class? It's kinda new so I'm curious...". Never unfriendly and I never felt uncomfortable but it was clear I was definitely being "sold".

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

Usually it's free lunches/pens/stationary, directed mainly at the residents and staff docs. I managed to score a Babinski hammer, a pharmacopoeia, and a leather-bound script book last year.

 

[lildave2586]

My dad's a drug rep. I don't think I could ever do that job. Actually I KNOW I could never do that job. What happens if you have a drug that you know is not as good as the competition. You still have to try to sell it. He says that if I ever treat drug reps badly he is going to chase me down with his drug rep friends and beat me. Interesting huh.

 

[Dr M T Head]

Usually when you tell them you are a med student they go "oh" and move to look for doctors. I just say "well I am also very impressionable" and they come back and invite me to dinners! 🙂

 

[Trismegistus4]

Instead, pharmaceuticals will divert this kind of ad funding toward patients directly (more TV and print ads), rather than physicians who are actually trained to weigh the information they are given.

That's faulty logic. If it were to their benefit to target patients rather than physicians, they would do so of their own volition, instead of doing so only when forced to by "pharm-free" policies that leave no other option.

Usually when you tell them you are a med student they go "oh" and move to look for doctors. I just say "well I am also very impressionable" and they come back and invite me to dinners! 🙂

Maybe that's because when you say you are a med student, they assume you're a bleeding heart liberal who subscribes to all of AMSA's positions, and thinks they're evil. Then when you slyly invite them to pay attention to you, they see that this is not true.

 

[DoctorPardi]

That's faulty logic. If it were to their benefit to target patients rather than physicians, they would do so of their own volition, instead of doing so only when forced to by "pharm-free" policies that leave no other option.

I think the point is if they have two options, 1) solicit physicians for use of their drugs and 2) solicit the public, then they will use both. If left only one option (solicit the public) then they will go full tilt towards that. Right now physicians are at least in the loop and many of the drug company commercials are for mostly harmless drugs like allergy medicine and viagra. In the future commercials could flood the market for more serious drugs on a more regular basis.

You can imagine being undermined by patients who feel the potentially life saving drug you are giving them is not as good as the one on the commercial.

 

[Dirt]

Good thread on this in topics in healthcare that should end this discussion.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=541818


Contains a nice article from the NY times:

from NY Times:

By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON — The pens, pads, mugs and other gifts that drug makers have long showered on doctors will be banned from pharmaceutical marketing campaigns under a voluntary guideline that the industry is expected to announce Thursday. The industry’s Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals will ask the chief executives of large drug makers to certify in writing that “they have policies and procedures in place to foster compliance with the code.” The code was written by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s trade association. But the code provides no definite limits on the millions of dollars spent on speaking and consulting arrangements that drug makers have forged with tens of thousands of doctors. Nor does it ban the routine provision of office breakfasts and lunches, or the occasional invitation to educational dinners at fancy restaurants. “Informative, ethical and professional relationships between health care providers and America’s pharmaceutical research companies are instrumental to effective patient care,” said Richard T. Clark, chief executive of Merck and chairman of the trade association. Some industry critics praised the new rules.
“We’ve been pushing to see reforms like this for some time now,” said Senator Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin. “Consumers will undoubtedly be the beneficiaries of these industry changes.” Mr. Kohl has co-sponsored a bill to require drug and medical device companies to publicly disclose payments to doctors of $500 or more. Other critics dismissed the new rules, which are entirely voluntary. “It strikes me as an attempt to persuade people against doing anything that’s serious,” said Sharon Treat, executive director of the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices. A growing number of states have passed or are considering legislation requiring drug makers to disclose payments to doctors. Minnesota has banned gifts to doctors valued at more than $50, including food; Massachusetts is considering a similar ban. Earlier this year, Christopher A. Viehbacher, now president for North American pharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithKline, wrote to Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi of the state’s House, suggesting his company might not invest as much in Massachusetts if “political developments” worked to “devalue” its assets there.
Mr. Viehbacher said that the proposed gift ban would make Massachusetts “the most hostile state in the nation when it comes to biopharmaceutical sales.” But after years of opposing state efforts to require disclosures of payments to doctors, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America recently announced support for the legislation to create the national registry of such payments, sponsored by Mr. Kohl and Senator Charles E. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa. On Wednesday, Attorney General William H. Sorrell of Vermont released that state’s annual report on pharmaceutical marketing efforts. As in past years, the state found that drug makers gave more money to psychiatrists than to doctors in any other specialty. Eleven psychiatrists in the state received an average of $56,944 each. Seven of the 10 most marketed drugs in Vermont treat psychiatric conditions. The report found that 84 drug companies spent more than $3 million in the 2007 fiscal year to market their products in the state, a 33 percent increase over reported expenditures the year before.
The new marketing code requires drug makers to set annual limits on the amounts they will pay doctors to deliver educational lectures to colleagues, although the code does not specify what the limit should be. Such a cap will require drug makers to track across divisions the amounts paid to doctors, which could make complying with a national registry far easier. The drug industry last updated its marketing code in 2002, when it banned “dine and dash” events in which drug makers provided free take-out dinners, Christmas trees and gas to doctors who agreed to listen to brief sales pitches. The earlier code also banned golf outings and free tickets to sporting events, bans which remain in effect. The new code takes effect in January. But neither the earlier rules nor those expected to be announced Thursday apply to biotechnology or medical device makers, many of which continue to give expensive gifts and resort vacations to high-profile physicians. Billy Tauzin, president of the drug industry trade association, said, “This updated code fortifies our companies’ commitment to ensure their medicines are marketed in a manner that benefits patients and enhances the practice of medicine.”

 

[Law2Doc]

That's faulty logic. If it were to their benefit to target patients rather than physicians, they would do so of their own volition, instead of doing so only when forced to by "pharm-free" policies that leave no other option.

You misunderstand my post. See DoctorPardi's post above, which I think restates my point more clearly.

 

[Bushido416]

http://www.phrma.org/news_room/press_releases/phrma_code_reinforces_commitmen

Drug industry releases code to restrict marketing to doctors

Last week, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
released a "Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals," that
significantly limits drug marketing practices and gifts to healthcare
providers. The voluntary code, which will take effect in January, prohibits
distribution of pens, mugs, and all other non-educational items to healthcare
providers and their staff. It also prohibits sales representatives from
providing restaurant meals to healthcare professionals, but permits
"occasional" in-office meals in conjunction with informational presentations.
The code bans industry from providing "recreational events" at continuing
medical education (CME) meetings and stresses that industry funding for CME
must be given to the sponsor "without strings." The code also addresses the
use of non-patient identified prescriber data, and calls for disclosure by
faculty serving on formulary committees of all their industry supported
speaking and consulting arrangements.

Last month the AAMC adopted a set of recommendations urging medical schools
and teaching hospitals to prohibit drug industry gifts, meals, and services
to physicians, faculty, residents, students, and staff. Although many of the
provisions in the new PhRMA code are concordant with the AAMC
recommendations, the latter go much further in restricting financial
interactions between academic medicine and industry.



I think many schools are starting to ban a lot of the pharma reps. Personally I love their pens especially the ones with shiny lights or the squishy toys you can get at conferences....I will miss free toys =(

 

[Trismegistus4]

You misunderstand my post. See DoctorPardi's post above, which I think restates my point more clearly.

OK. Still, we don't necessarily know that they will divert all of the money they've spent on doctors to direct-to-consumer marketing. It's possible they are already near the point of diminishing returns.

Drug industry releases code to restrict marketing to doctors

Sigh. Yet another reason I wish I'd been born 30 years earlier.

 

[Law2Doc]

OK. Still, we don't necessarily know that they will divert all of the money they've spent on doctors to direct-to-consumer marketing. It's possible they are already near the point of diminishing returns.

Corporate marketing departments have budgets and need to spend them each year or they get their budget cut in subsequent years. So all the money being spent to target doctors has to go someplace marketing related. That really only leaves the consumer. They haven't reached the point of diminishing returns until they reach the majority of paying consumers who might utilize their products. I kind of doubt they are close to that point for products other than those targetting erectile dysfunction, but who knows.