Answer Addiction

Tag: drug marketing

  • How Big Pharma's Payments To Doctors Affected Overdose Deaths

    How Big Pharma's Payments To Doctors Affected Overdose Deaths

    A new study examined the link between large payments and gifts to doctors from pharma companies and overdose deaths.

    In counties and states where opioid manufacturers offered large payments or gifts to doctors to promote their product, a new study has suggested that both opioid prescriptions and opioid-related overdose deaths were higher than in other areas.

    Coverage of the study in The New York Times showed that the study culled information from a variety of sources, including the Open Payments database, which tracks payments by pharmaceutical companies to doctors, and data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

    Information from these sources suggested that spending on physicians was most highly concentrated in the Northeastern United States, where certain cities and counties claim some of the highest overdose death rates in the country.

    The study, conducted by researchers from Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and New York University School of Medicine, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, filtered data from the aforementioned national databases through three criteria: total dollar value of marketing efforts by companies spent on doctors, number of payments and number of physicians that received any marketing. 

    According to the researchers, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $40 million promoting their opioid products to nearly 68,000 doctors between 2013 and 2015. The marketing efforts included paid meals, trips and consulting fees.

    By referencing overdose data and opioid prescription numbers from the CDC, they determined that for every three additional payments made to doctors per 100,000 people in a county, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids would rise 18% over a year’s time.

    Marketing to doctors dropped significantly in the period immediately following the years included in the study by 33%, which The New York Times attributed to public pressure on companies after the opioid epidemic began reaching critical levels.

    Cities and counties in the Northeastern US that received some of the largest payments also had some of the highest overdose rates, including Salem and Fredericksburg in Virginia, Cabell County in West Virginia and Lackawanna County in Pennsylvania.

    As The New York Times noted, the study authors also suggested that the number of interactions such as free meals appeared to be more strongly linked to overdose deaths than the amount spent on such interactions. 

    “Each meal seems to be associated with more and more prescriptions,” said study lead author Dr. Scott Hadland of Boston Medical Center’s Grayken Center for Addiction. Hadland and his co-authors also wrote that the study did have limitations: They were unable to differentiate between overdose deaths involving prescribed opioids and those caused by painkillers obtained through illegal means.

    “We acknowledge that our work describes only one part of the very complex opioid overdose crisis in this country,” said Hadland. “Even still, prescription opioids remain involved in one-third of all opioid overdose deaths, and are commonly the first medications that people encounter before transitioning to heroin or fentanyl. It is critical that we take measures now to prevent marketing from unnecessarily exposing new people to opioids they may not need.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Do Free Meals From Pharma Reps Affect Doctors' Prescribing Habits?

    Do Free Meals From Pharma Reps Affect Doctors' Prescribing Habits?

    A new paper examined prescribing numbers and marketing efforts by two pharmaceutical companies to determine if free meals made an impact.

    Cardiologists who were taken out for a meal by sales representatives from two major drug manufacturers were 73% more likely to prescribe medication from those companies, even if equivalent, lower-costing generic drugs were available.

    Those are the findings suggested by a new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which also alleged that while an increase in prescribing certain drugs can be a positive for patients that use them, it can also take a toll on consumers by pushing more expensive drugs over cheaper alternatives; the paper’s authors estimated that the total cost was $190 million.

    The paper also suggested that such marketing techniques for doctors should be eliminated altogether, as several states and health care systems have already done. 

    The paper looked at prescribing numbers and marketing efforts by two pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer and AstraZeneca—which make the cholesterol-lowering drugs Lipitor and Crestor, respectively—between the years 2011 and 2012. Meal payments were made the focus because they were the most popular form of courting doctors, and made for the majority of non-research payments during that time period.

    As MarketWatch reporter Emma Court noted, meal payments are, “by their very nature, designed to be ‘pure persuasion,’ as opposed to payments for consulting or speaking.”

    Meal payments were valued at less than $150.

    As for the nature of the discussion, the paper’s authors opined that it was “very likely that statins”—drugs used to reduce fat levels in blood—”were the focus of any drug-related discussions,” since Lipitor and Crestor comprised the majority of both companies’ sales to cardiologists. 

    The researchers found that when the two companies’ sales representatives paid for meals when meeting with cardiologists, those doctors were 73% more likely to prescribe Lipitor or Crestor to their patients. It did not appear to matter what sort of meal it was; as the report’s authors noted, “it appears that the effect is driven by the receipt of any meal, regardless of its value.” 

    The information disseminated by the companies’ sales representatives also did not impact the doctors’ decisions; as Court wrote, both drugs had been available for nearly a decade (15 years, in the case of Lipitor), which meant that new information about either medication was unlikely to be provided at these lunch meetings, and lower-priced generic equivalents for both drugs were widely available.

    Plying medical professionals with gifts, which ranged from simple meals to lucrative speaking engagements and consulting work, has been a regular sales and marketing practice for pharmaceutical companies.

    But with studies like the NBER report suggesting that prescription rates rise and clinical treatment can be influenced after such treatment—which in turn can have a negative impact on health care costs and patient health—health industry observers and policymakers have turned to legislation that requires pharmaceutical companies to report all payments made to doctors, or ban such gestures altogether.

    View the original article at thefix.com