ICA: Marketing Ethics: Drug Dealing The pharmaceutical industry is innovating at
ID: 381966 • Letter: I
Question
ICA: Marketing Ethics: Drug Dealing
The pharmaceutical industry is innovating at a dizzying pace, but it is getting more difficult for pharmaceutical sales reps to reach doctors to inform them of new or improved products. One option is to host educational seminars. However, many educational seminars are held at lavish restaurants or destinations underwritten by pharmaceutical companies, and doctors providing the education are paid consulting and speaking fees to the tune of more than $2 billion since 2009. In some cases, speakers are given scripts developed by the pharmaceutical company, leading to the criticism that this is company-scripted marketing and the distinguished speaker is merely a “paid parrot” selling drugs for the company. Critics also claim that such promotion results in needlessly increased prescriptions for expensive drugs that are no better than generic alternatives. Many drug makers are reducing expenditures for such product promotions because of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, a provision of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Pro Publica has a “Dollars for Docs” searchable database, and by late 2014, as part of the Sunshine Act, a searchable government Web site will be available to the public to shed light on pharmaceutical sales practices.
Do you believe it is wrong for pharmaceutical companies to explain the benefits of their products to physicians this way? Suggest other alternatives for reaching doctors to inform them of the benefits of a company’s products.
Learn about the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Search Pro Publica’s “Dollars for Docs” database (http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/) for local physicians to see if they have received payments from pharmaceutical companies. Would you have a different opinion about your doctor, if he or she is listed as one of the recipients?
Also read the article: https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-who-take-company-cash-tend-to-prescribe-more-brand-name-drugs
Based on your reading of this article, describe two findings in the article that you disagree with, and explain why.
Explanation / Answer
There are constant new discoveries in the medical field and consequent product upgrades by pharmaceutical companies. It is therefore imperative for the pharmaceutical companies to inform/educate the doctors and physicians about new product development and their benefits. The ethical dilemma is how to do to this without paid inducements like expensive gifts, cash transfers or invitations to attend seminars where in exchange of benefits the doctors are made to speak on contents prepared by the pharmaceutical companies.
The intent of the companies might be right in trying to educate the doctors about new products though the method used is debatable. By making cash payment and giving gifts the doctors are influenced to prescribe certain brands which are much costlier than generic brands with same benefits. This is a breach of trust for the patients.
The pharmaceutical companies should therefore desist from personalizing their product promotion campaign by giving benefits to doctors. It should rather have a public education platform or conduct press conferences to announce new products. It may also mail product catalogs to doctors and hospitals and publish the information in medical journals. Once they do this way, the allegations of favoritism and bias would gradually dissipate.
It is a good initiative to upload information about physicians having received payment from pharmaceutical companies. It will definitely change one's opinion about a doctor if it is learnt that the said doctor mainly prescribed medicines or devices from a particular company in aid of huge cash benefits.
The two findings in the said article are that research and data proves doctors receive cash benefits to prescribe medicines or devices from particular pharmaceutical companies, and; some of the doctors defend prescribing medicines from particular companies as they think it is in the medical interest of their patients.
Both the findings are indefensible since it is ethically a criminal act to induce doctors by way of monetary benefits to prescribe certain brands which would most likely be substantially expensive than comparable generic drug. This is a clear breach of trust between a doctor and patient. Similarly, the contention by doctors that they prescribe drugs in the best interest of their patients is also untenable when it shows the benefits they received from that particular company.