In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

As long as we’re talking about medical costs…

…several commenters in the AMA thread mentioned drug costs, and Anna applauded one academic center’s banning of drug reps. Thanks for the segue, people!

I was literally weaned on drug company samples – formula given to my dad by a drug rep. He wasn’t a pediatrician, but the rep was trying to build a relationship. Now, my dad, like most of my colleagues, would have told you that he wasn’t influenced by drug reps (he called them “detail men”). He would have said that he made his own independent decisions, that he only saw the reps so he could get samples for the benefit of his patients. And my dad did read peer-reviewed journals, and he subscribed to the Medical Letter, an independent drug-review bulletin. So I grew up understanding that this was how the game was played. Getting stuff from drug reps was one of the perks of being a doc. And I took some of that stuff to college with me – anatomical models, charts and diagrams suitable for a diligent pre-med student. I probably used a drug company pen to sign the registration form when I started med school.

Then I met a drug rep in the parking lot. I had to; my residency didn’t allow drug reps to give us stuff. I’d worked with the rep from Genentech when tPA was first introduced for heart attacks, and the day we used our first dose the rep called me and said “I have something for you, but I can’t give it to you at work because I don’t have enough for everyone”. He told me he could tell I was special, since I’d worked so hard to get tPA approved at the hospital. He met me one night in a parking lot and gave me three cardiology textbooks, nearly $300.00 worth of books I couldn’t afford. I was interested in cardiology, and I had organized the effort that got the expensive and novel clot-busting drug approved for administration in the ER of our hospital. Pretty unusual for a second-year resident. But there was something wrong with getting books in the parking lot. There was something not quite right with profiting personally from work I’d done for patients, and there was something really unpleasant about this guy pretending he liked me when I knew, rationally, that he only cared about the money his company would make from the medication. This was first time I was aware of the real cost of a medication – one dose of tPA cost $2000.00. How much of that, I wondered, came out of patient’s pockets to put books in my hands?

I never did take those books out of my car. Eventually I tossed them in a dumpster. Instead of reading them, I started reading studies about the effectiveness – and the cost – of marketing to docs. I learned that a majority of drup rep presentations include false or illegal statements. I found www.nofreelunch.org and I stopped taking pens. Or memo pads. Or tote bags. I won’t eat the food the drug reps bring to my office. My staff always makes a point of telling me if there’s food in the back that came from patients, or that someone brought in for a birthday, but mostly I bring my own lunch and eat alone at my desk. I force the practice to pay for prescription pads and print out work excuses so we don’t use the forms the drug reps give us; I took down the Lipitor clock and threw out the Rhinocort tissues that were in my exam rooms. I don’t take samples for my own use, or for my family. A few weeks ago I went to a local deli for breakfast and the owner served my coffee in a drug company mug; I made her take it away and bring me a different one. I buy my own pens at Staples. My partners think I’m nuts. I try not to show what I think of their participation.

We like to think of ourselves as scientific, us medical folk. And we are committed to the well-being of patients. But we refuse to look at the evidence that the current system benefits docs and drug companies and costs patients money. Worse than that, it drives inappropriate drug utilization. Brand new antibiotics that kill off broad categories of bacteria are used indiscriminately for uncomplicated infections that can be adequately treated with older, narrow-spectrum drugs. That’s how we end up with MRSA in healthy people. Docs jumped on the bandwagon with Celebrex and Vioxx when there was never any real evidence that they were better than the older drugs for most people.  It’s not scientific, and it’s not good for patients, and in truth it’s not even ethical.

I almost resigned my ACP membership when they supported the Medicare Part D plan, because it’s a handout to drug companies that does nothing at all to control costs. The ACP was responding to pressure from its membership. Apparently my colleagues aren’t yet ready to give up their free lunch.


24 thoughts on As long as we’re talking about medical costs…

  1. My dad’s an MD, so I grew up with the pens and note pads as well. Heck, my dad just gave me some sort of fancy folder thing, but I think it was from a software company and not a drug company. He’s told me about the extremely expensive dinners he’s been treated to, and I am under no illusions as to why drugs cost so damn much. That said, I buy all my drugs generic. And I hope that I won’t have to deal with such a sticky ethical situation as an engineer. I give lots of credit to doctors, they (at least the ones I’ve interacted with) do amazing work.

  2. very informative. i am going to check out that website. not sure if this is meant to be a Q&A post, but here goes…

    how do you feel about generic drugs. i know so little about the debate, only that a lot of my bottles (when i actually my docs enough to not overdose me again) say “generic for…” i currently have no opinion…

    i have also had several doctors insist on giving me drugs for off label purposes: topamax for chronic headaches, cymbalta for fibromyalgia, which i believe wasn’t approved for that, and one that was new last year, that my rheumatologist wanted me to take, but refused b/c it was off label. how do you feel about this new trend that i am seeing?

    lastly, i hate the barrage of pharma commercials i see…what happened to letting doctors suggest drugs that have been proven effective, rather than allowing a patient to ask for one the doc hasn’t yet heard of. thank-you for your hard stance on that angle. it’s admirable.

    sorry about so many questions…but it’s nice to have a captive expert on an issue i care so much about.

  3. Jay,

    As a non medical person *coughs*, I think if the doctor does prescribe certain drugs because they are the most helpful to their patients, there wouldn’t be anything wrong with accepting ‘perks’ from the company (notepads, pens). It’s just my opinion and how I would see it.

    I’m rather grateful to the heart specialist I have. I forgot the name of the medicine, but I saw it on TV touted as ‘the greatest thing’ for those with heart problems. When I asked Dr. Amin about it, he said that the drug company had overstated the benefits, and he wasn’t pleased with the reports on it. So no he wouldn’t prescribe it. Plus he is also the first to mark the generic as well.

  4. Jay — although I applaud your going the extra mile, even the most scrupulous company I’ve worked at let us accept one advertising novelty per vendor, not to exceed $10: the equivalent of one wall calendar/coffee mug/four disposable clicker pens, etc. A ten-dollar-bribe would sway no one. But using a supplier’s prescription pad provides free advertising and an implicit endorsement of the supplier, so even if the cost is negligible, it’s inappropriate. At home I use the free note pads the real estate people are always sending me.

    Another idea just occurred to me: many teachers end up buying school supplies out of their own pocket. You could collect pens, etc., and give them to a local school.

  5. Do you experience negative repercussions? Not just that your staff thinks you’re wierd, but are you ostracized professionally, or do your drugs magically cost more, or anything?

  6. Hector, it’s not just the money. Advertising works. If I use a Cozaar pen (especially one with the dose helpfully written on it), then when I need to prescribe a blood pressure med, Cozaar will pop into my head. I’ll even know the dose. So I’m more likely to prescribe it. I’m smart and I’m careful but I can’t control my subconscious and my memory, so I just try not to look at the stuff. Plus my making an issue of it makes everyone around me more aware of the system. Otherwise it’s invisible.

    There is no actual scientific debate about generic drugs. In almost all cases, they work just as well as the name-brands. I prescribe generics whenever they’re available and I’d take them myself. The debate that exists is fostered by the drug companies (at more expense) to protect their profits.

    Brandann, off-label uses are more complicated. I use meds off-label all the time, as long as there’s evidence in the literature to support that use or a good physiological reason to think it will work. Inderal (propranolol0 was used for migraines for years before it was FDA approved. The drug company applies for approval for a certain indication, and that drives the labeling process. “Off label /= ineffective or inappropriate. It’s more challenging to find good studies for off-label uses because most studies are funded by drug companies, though.

    And yes, I spend a fair amount of time counter-detailing to my patients because of direct-to-consumer advertising, but the “good old days” when the doctor decided weren’t so good. The doc was in all likelihood coming from a drug lunch. The last study I saw said that 70% of US docs admitted to getting most or all of the info about new drugs from reps and advertising. At least ads on TV on clearly ads, and not disguised as education or friendly meals.

  7. I used to work in a medical association a few years back. I have seen the lavish multi-million dollar parties the Pharma giants throw for MD’s. I have seen lavish gifts bestowed upon MD’s for just even meeting with a Drug rep – from season tickets at NFL games to trips to London, to lunches for the office for months on end.

    I have also seen MD’s take these freebies and placate the drug reps just so they could get the freebies but not seriously, routinely prescribe the drugs.

    I no longer work at that association and I never will again work at a medical association. The greed and money spent by big pharma out of “R&D” accounts to pay for these parties and freebies is obscene….and then you look at the patients who can barely afford to buy food that month because they need their drugs.

    The industry should look to healing itself….

  8. I think if the doctor does prescribe certain drugs because they are the most helpful to their patients, there wouldn’t be anything wrong with accepting ‘perks’ from the company (notepads, pens). It’s just my opinion and how I would see it.

    Unfortunately this doesn’t work for the very reason Jay describes above. If you’re staring at a pen or a clock that says “Lipitor” on it, you may be more inclined to prescribe it even though another drug is more appropriate or less expensive.

    If you want to read something stomach-turning about how bad compensation to MDs from pharma companies can be, I recommend this NYT article about a 12 year old girl who was given Risperdal, usually used to treat schizophrenia, because she had an eating disorder and one of Risperdal’s SIDE EFFECTS is weight gain. It’s pretty ugly.

    I think we should go for Minnesota’s approach: drug companies cannot give a doctor more than $50 worth of gifts (food or otherwise) in a year.

  9. As long as we’re bringing up bad marketing, let’s take a minute to remember Purdue Pharma, which was fined over $600 million this summer for claiming that Oxycontin was not addictive when they marketed it to doctors.

    As we all know now, oxycontin is highly addictive and has ruined the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people, but why should a drug company care about that when there’s a profit to be made?

  10. (Apologies if this double-posts)

    As long as we’re bringing up bad marketing, let’s take a minute to remember Purdue Pharma, which was fined over $600 million this summer for claiming that Oxycontin was not addictive when they marketed it to doctors.

    As we all know now, oxycontin is highly addictive and has ruined the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people, but why should a drug company care about that when there’s a profit to be made?

  11. I worked in child psychiatry research for a number of years, both before and after the (perfectly reasonable) scare about suicide in adolescents taking SSRIs, and the “black box” warning that then went on all the meds. The difference between before and after the scare, in terms of drug company handouts, was marked. Before, we had ridiculous amounts of food, gifts, and literature flowing into the office, and I can’t imagine these things didn’t have an effect.

    It seems to me that the bottom line is, drug companies would not spend millions (billions?) of dollars on these kinds of tactics unless they worked. Unless they had data that showed that kind of deluge of freebies made docs more likely to prescribe their meds. Big pharma is in the business of making money, not doing favors.

  12. fashionably evil: i live in minnesota, and i’m appalled at how much drug company crap i see in my doctors’ offices. so, i am not for spreading out minnesota’s approach, as i’ve just realized everyone else must have it worse, and am appalled at that, as well.

  13. Fashionably evil, that’s horrible. I just want to point out, though, that from a pharmacology point of view, there is no ‘side effect’, only wanted and unwanted effects based on what is being treated. Unwanted effects in one case could be wanted effects if the drug is proscribed for another illness, if they happen to be powerful enough. Many drugs are normally only proscribed for a narrow range of conditions because of their actions, but that’s not to say that soem don’t ahve uses in many different areas.

    I’m always grateful that we have the UK NHS, though that brings up the problems of NICE not approving more expensive drugs, or postcode lotteries or the like. It’s horrifying that despite basic healthcare being essential, so many people have it really bad.

  14. Then the belief is that it could and has affected a doctor’s decision in prescribing the best medicine for particular patient’s disease. I was going under the thought that if a doctor believes (using Jay’s example of a drug) Cozaar would be the best choice for someone with high blood pressure, that’s what would be prescribed whether the physician was using a Cozaar pen or not.

    I had no idea the practice of such expensive freebies are offered to doctors. However, I can’t say I’m surprised.

  15. Betsy, the Minnesota approach has only been in effect for 2 years, so maybe it will take more time before things even out? I attended public health school recently, and even the biostatistics department had a free pharma clock by the elevator.

    Anne, thanks for the clarification. Obviously, it’s a matter of balancing risks and benefits, but I think (and I think we all agree) that giving psychotropic drugs to a 12 year old crosses the line.

  16. Regular old scientists like me get free stuff also, but it’s from companies like Fisher and Sigma-Aldrich instead of drug companies. And it’s not nearly so lavish. We get a free lunch now and then and some free samples of things like gloves or epp tubes. Or sometimes biotech companies come to the university to recruit people to work for them and then we get some free stuff. But I don’t really think there is an ethical dilemma in accepting free samples from companies like that, since ordering lab supplies affects nobody but me and my labmates.

  17. Entomologista, free samples from suppliers is to me a normal business practice. If you think those are the gloves you want, or the epp tubes that work for you, you’re right – it affects no one else. And it’s clearly advertising. The problem with drug detailing is that a) it masquerades as education and b) the person controlling the purchase is not the person actually using the product, or the person actually paying the bill.

    If some administrator at your institution told you that you had to use Brand Z gloves and you had no choice, and then you found out that said administrator had been taken to lunch by the Brand Z rep, you might be a tad put out. That’s a better analogy.

    Em, I don’t experience any specific negative repercussions in the way you mean. When my prescribing patterns have been audited I always look pretty good from a cost perspective – I tend to use older, cheaper drugs more often than most of my colleagues. I will only use a newer or more expensive drug if there’s some actual evidence showing that it’s better than what I’ve been prescribing. So insurers love me, as do utilization review folks at the hospital and hospice where I work. But I am marginalized in a way that’s really uncomfortable, especially at professional meetings, where much of the socializing takes place at drug-company sponsored get-togethers. I don’t go to major conferences any more – I do my continuing ed online or with journal articles.

  18. I work at an academic clinical research organization, in cardiology. What I’ve seen disgusts me, but who can really talk about it?

    Look at what happened to Eric Topol at the Cleveland Clinic. People don’t say much.

  19. But I am marginalized in a way that’s really uncomfortable, especially at professional meetings, where much of the socializing takes place at drug-company sponsored get-togethers.

    Do these get-togethers go beyond the “hospitality suite” with free drinks and mixed nuts? Generally you can hang out with your peers without compromising your ideals at one of those — well, you might not be able to resist a chocolate dipped strawberry or two.

  20. many teachers end up buying school supplies out of their own pocket. You could collect pens, etc., and give them to a local school.

    Uh, I don’t think that’s such a good idea, also reminds me of a friend of mine whose wife worked as a file assistant part-time in a medical office. There home and his (my friend’s) was loaded with pharma goodies — rulers, pens, pads, etc.

    He still has some old black plastic rulers sitting around his office with “Valium” clearly blazoned across both sides. Imagine a class full of kids using valium rulers? Or possibly Oxycontin?

    No, unfortunately, the things really are useless junk because of what they advertise.

  21. It’s so weird to me; Doctors and Scientists have the importance of unconscious bias drilled into them.

    Another blog I was reading made the point that double-blind procedures weren’t created to stop the corrupt Doctors; They were created to stop honest Doctors from unconsciously skewing the test results.

    The placebo effect is another example; if you believe something will be effective, there’s a chance it will be, just because you believe it.

    All of modern science is built around the idea that a person’s unconscious biases can have huge effects, effects so big they can destroy the value of a scientific study.

    And yet somehow we’re to believe that all the drug advertising doesn’t effect Doctors? That somehow the addition of incentives and positive associations lessens the effect of unconscious bias?

    I don’t think so.

  22. Academics have the same issue to a lesser extent. I have a LabSchool mug sitting in my cabinet right now. The book reps bring textbooks along with lunches to the university to advertise their newest program/textbook/series to the folks choosing the textbooks.

    I used to get the freebies because the thinking is that the staff are the the ones putting the textbooks in front of the profs for review, which is true actually.

    Besides, we actually rely on the freebies–desk copies–to give our profs and GTAs a copy of the book being used in the class they are teaching. So, we really did put the books published by companies who are more generous with their desk copies under the nose of the profs reviewing them for use in class.

  23. kate – the things I remember seeing were more like Voraster or Transaglix — nothing that today’s youth would grow up craving. But I see your point. (Totally made up names)

  24. I guess I never really thought of it that way. Of course I was the child who would go to the county fair for all the info booths where orgs had free pens and pencils. I called it school shopping.

    I see a similar thing at law school but it is not as bad because I am the intended consumer, not my clients. But I guess it does reach my clients in the end because using a certain software program has costs that ultimately get passed on to them. And it was weird this past summer when I realized that I was studying for the bar using the PrepCompany software and PrepCo study books with my PrepCo pen and Prep Co highlighter while wearing a PrepCo t-shirt and drinking from a PrepCo waterbottle.

Comments are currently closed.