- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 6,005
- Reaction score
- 4,357
Because people still perceive wrongly that physicians are the 'captain of the ship' so to speak regarding healthcare delivery when NP/PA are a major component of the system and are doing quite better than physicians... Do you think ANA have a hand on that?Comments hilarious as always. Hope they enjoy not getting any medication samples bc they're fearful that a doc gets a pharma lunch (as if we give a ****). Notice PAs and NPs are not covered by this law. I wonder why.
Except the American people didn't write the law - Congress did. So now Pharma will just sell thru them. It wouldn't surprise me.Because people still perceive wrongly that physicians are the 'captain of the ship' so to speak regarding healthcare delivery when NP/PA are a major component of the system and are doing quite better than physicians... Do you think ANA have a hand on that?
Please qualify your post. I don't think they're doing quite better at treating stage IV Glioblastomas, fixing gastroschisis, diagnosing Melanoma under the scope, fixing cleft palates...I'll stop there.Because people still perceive wrongly that physicians are the 'captain of the ship' so to speak regarding healthcare delivery when NP/PA are a major component of the system and are doing quite better than physicians... Do you think ANA have a hand on that?
I believe he's taking about the ROI personally, not on actual diagnosis, knowledge, etc. Of course, the NPs and PAs I meet tend to not be the medical knowledge hungry type anyways.Please qualify your post. I don't think they're doing quite better at treating stage IV Glioblastomas, fixing gastroschisis, diagnosing Melanoma under the scope, fixing cleft palates...I'll stop there.
Comments hilarious as always. Hope they enjoy not getting any medication samples bc they're fearful that a doc gets a pharma lunch (as if we give a ****). Notice PAs and NPs are not covered by this law. I wonder why.
Yup. If anything it brings up the morale of the group. It's not like we're actually listening while they go on about their drug. It's not like you're going to prescribe the HTN drug for someone with asthma.I loved the pharma lunches when I worked in a clinic. We just wanted the free food and Starbucks they gave us for putting their product in our sample closer.
Yup. If anything it brings up the morale of the group. It's not like we're actually listening while they go on about their drug. It's not like you're going to prescribe the HTN drug for someone with asthma.
Yup. Pretty much the only person who actually listens in the room is the med student - bc you're in school so you're much closer to your education and they usually review the disease process, the mechanism of action of the drug, etc. By taking these things away - won't make the drug any cheaper and in fact will hurt patients bc no more samples - as has already happened. Which sucks when you want the patient to try the drug for a bit, see if they get improvement, before having them shell out money for it. Very helpful esp. in Derm to see that the topical works, before they get the 35 g tube.Totally. I think I'm the only one that listened bc I was curious but I wasn't a doctor so it didn't matter.
Our doc would purposely wait until they were gone to go eat.
Yup. Pretty much the only person who actually listens in the room is the med student - bc you're in school so you're much closer to your education and they usually review the disease process, the mechanism of action of the drug, etc. By taking these things away - won't make the drug any cheaper and in fact will hurt patients bc no more samples - as has already happened. Which sucks when you want the patient to try the drug for a bit, see if they get improvement, before having them shell out money for it. Very helpful esp. in Derm to see that the topical works, before they get the 35 g tube.
CONCLUSION:
The present extent of physician-industry interactions appears to affect prescribing and professional behavior and should be further addressed at the level of policy and education.
To this end, some companies combine data sources. For example, Medical Marketing Service “enhances the AMA Masterfile with non-AMA data from a variety of sources to not only include demographic selections, but also behavioral and psychographic selections that help you to better target your perfect prospects” [8].
The goal of this demographic slicing and dicing is to identify physicians who are most susceptible to marketing efforts. One industry article suggests categorizing physicians as “hidden gems”: “Initially considered ‘low value’ because they are low prescribers, these physicians can change their prescribing habits after targeted, effective marketing.” “Growers” are “Physicians who are early adopters of a brand. Pharmaceutical companies employ retention strategies to continue to reinforce their growth behavior.” Physicians are considered “low value” “due to low category share and prescribing level”
Conclusions and RelevanceAmong physician trainees, our survey showed an association between positive attitudes toward industry-physician interactions and less knowledge about evidence-based prescribing and greater inclination to recommend brand-name drugs. Policies intended to insulate trainees from pharmaceutical marketing may promote better educational outcomes.
Madigan’s own data strongly suggests that Merck was well aware of the fatalities resulting from Vioxx, a blockbuster drug that earned them $2.4b in 2003, the year before it “voluntarily” pulled it from the market in September 2004. What you will read below shows that the company set up standard data protection and analysis plans which they later either revoked or didn’t follow through with, they gave the FDA misleading statistics to trick them into thinking the drug was safe, and set up a biased filter on an Alzheimer’s patient study to make the results look better. They hoodwinked the FDA and the New England Journal of Medicine and took advantage of the public trust which ultimately caused the deaths of thousands of people.
It also has the unintended consequence of doctors not participating in clinical research bc of a database listing everything in God's name over 10 dollars, so why bother doing it if it will be used against you. Meanwhile, PAs and NPs are not covered by the Sunshine Act, so guess where Pharma has now targeted?In conclusion. First, to believe that gift-giving doesn't influence behavior (of all kinds) is naive and is not supported by the data in the context of medicine (or in much else). Second, to believe that drug company educational materials are benign suggests an inability or unwillingness to be read up on the most basic literature about the pharmaceutical industry. For these reasons, many medical schools and hospitals have rightly set up strict restrictions on the interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical reps, including but not limited to restrictions on pharm reps visiting physicians, gift-giving, disclosures of conflict of interest, etc. Most recently, the Sunshine Act takes the field by forcing transparency and accountability--and it is right to do so.
Although there are problems with the Sunshine Act, and specifically its implementation, I do not know of any informed, intelligent, reputable person who thinks it is not a step firmly in the right direction.
If anyone wants to read more, here is a great website, supported with research citations, that sums up the problems with physicians receiving gifts from pharmaceutical companies. This page also includes answers to objections posed by those who might hold lingering reservations about the wisdom of limiting the activities of pharm reps.
http://www.nofreelunch.org/faqs.htm
It also has the unintended consequence of doctors not participating in clinical research bc of a database listing everything in God's name over 10 dollars, so why bother doing it if it will be used against you..)
You actually think physicians will participate in MORE research with Pharma when everything will be scrutizined esp. by a patient who doesn't know how to even read the database? Look at the Medicare payment release debacle, where you have idiot patients thinking doctors are making million dollar+ in salary due to billing.You have evidence to support this extravagant claim, I suppose? (Rhetorical. I know you don't.)
(And are you really suggesting we do nothing against Big Pharma giving loads of money to unscrupulous physicians -some of which are big wigs who play with millions+ worth of money year round, mind you- to... protect clinical research? You're so disingenuous I swear to God.)
It also has the unintended consequence of doctors not participating in clinical research bc of a database listing everything in God's name over 10 dollars, so why bother doing it if it will be used against you. Meanwhile, PAs and NPs are not covered by the Sunshine Act, so guess where Pharma has now targeted?
You must be a future AMSA President in training. I'm sure they'll indoctrinate you well.
Are they taking that away or they just want it to be reported?Yup. Pretty much the only person who actually listens in the room is the med student - bc you're in school so you're much closer to your education and they usually review the disease process, the mechanism of action of the drug, etc. By taking these things away - won't make the drug any cheaper and in fact will hurt patients bc no more samples - as has already happened. Which sucks when you want the patient to try the drug for a bit, see if they get improvement, before having them shell out money for it. Very helpful esp. in Derm to see that the topical works, before they get the 35 g tube.
Are they taking that away or they just want it to be reported?
Hey man I'm just saying that it's funny that politicians have the gall to demand that someone else has to be transparent about who gives them money. It's better for them to advertise to people who can actually understand and evaluate the data rather than blasting advertisements on the television to ask your doctor about whatever wonder drug they just made. Oh wait excuse me, your "health care provider"
It also has the unintended consequence of doctors not participating in clinical research bc of a database listing everything in God's name over 10 dollars, so why bother doing it if it will be used against you. Meanwhile, PAs and NPs are not covered by the Sunshine Act, so guess where Pharma has now targeted?
You must be a future AMSA President in training. I'm sure they'll indoctrinate you well.
Newsflash -- NIH money is drying up, so people in clinical research have to look for other resources. The pharmaceutical company doesn't write the paper - the doctor (the principal investigator) does, which is subject to peer review before being accepted. I can almost guarantee that PAs and NPs won't be added to the Sunshine Law. Unlike medicine, NPs have no moral qualms of turning to Pharma (over 96%) and will lobby to keep it that way.Yes, and when doctors participate in clinical research with a negative finding, it sometimes doesn't get published, or the research outcome is cooked or controlled by the corporate sponsor. Is it a better situation (the situation we still have now) to have industry dollars supporting research that generates a distorted research record, buttressed by the prestige of the medical profession? It may be the case that the kind of transparency that the Sunshine Act promotes hinders the innovation process--but it also promotes the integrity of science. Until regulations are in place (and fully functioning) that prevent undue influence of pharmaceutical companies over the research process, I'm not sure that discouraging physicians from participating in it using industry funding is a bad thing.
As far as PAs and NPs, you point out a serious problem. Nonetheless, because doctors are the major decision-makers and have the greatest responsibility, it was not a bad idea to start with them. One hopes that the criticisms you point out have their impact in making the law better implemented in the future, and strip PAs and NPs of what can now only be called special privileges.
There are other problems, too, that need to be addressed. Here is a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about how pharm reps are targeting hospitals, as hospitals gain greater control over physician prescribing practices. The pharmaceutical industry is hydra-headed. http://online.wsj.com/articles/as-doctors-lose-clout-drug-firms-redirect-the-sales-call-1411612207
As far as AMSA is concerned, I do not have any interest in organizations that I do not create myself. I am very tired of burning energy, doing the work of uninspired idiots. If by being "indoctrinated", you mean reading and thinking independently, and coming to the same conclusions as AMSA (and most academic institutions), then yes you are right; I do agree with some things that they say, and since many of them are bad people (probably true), this of course makes me a bad person... Or not.
Newsflash -- NIH money is drying up, so people in clinical research have to look for other resources. The pharmaceutical company doesn't write the paper - the doctor (the principal investigator) does, which is subject to peer review before being accepted. I can almost guarantee that PAs and NPs won't be added to the Sunshine Law. Unlike medicine, NPs have no moral qualms of turning to Pharma (over 96%) and will lobby to keep it that way.
The problem of missing trials is one of the greatest ethical and practical problems facing medicine today. It also represents a bizarre paradox: we can spend millions of dollars on a trial, hoping it is free from bias, trying to detect a modest difference between two treatment groups; and then at the final moment we let all those biases and errors back in, by permitting half the results to disappear. Future generations may well look back at our tolerating this in amazement, in the same way that we look back on mediaeval bloodletting.