Pharmaceutical companies spend more than $15 billion each year promoting prescription drugs in the United States. One-third of that amount is spent on “detailing” — an industry term for drug company representatives’ one-on-one promotion to doctors. A paper published April 24, 2007 in the Public Library of Science journal Medicine uncovers the tactics which pharmaceutical sales representatives, commonly called “drug reps,” are trained to use in promoting drugs to prescribing physicians.

“It’s my job to figure out what a physician’s price is. For some it’s dinner at the finest restaurants, for others it’s enough convincing data to let them prescribe confidently and for others it’s my attention and friendship… but at the most basic level, everything is for sale and everything is an exchange,” stated former Eli Lilly drug rep Shahram Ahari.

Ahari, no longer a drug rep, co-wrote the paper with Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The paper is based on conversations between Ahari and Fugh-Berman, who researches pharmaceutical marketing.

The writers report that drug reps are trained to gather as much personal information as possible about the doctors to whom they are promoting pharmaceuticals — from birthdays and hobbies to religious affiliation. Drug reps are trained to note any detail that can be used to establish a personal relationship with a doctor. Ahari stated, “During training, I was told, when you’re out to dinner with a doctor, ‘The physician is eating with a friend. You are eating with a client.'”

Drug reps offer gifts, and not just mugs and pens inscribed with drug names. “The highest prescribers receive better presents,” wrote Ahari. Pharmaceutical companies rank doctors according to the number of prescriptions they write — from 1 at the low end to 10 for high prescribers. According to Ahari, “Some reps said their 10s might receive unrestricted ‘educational’ grants so loosely restricted that they were the equivalent of a cash gift.”

The source of the 1-to-10 ranking data is prescription tracking. So-called “health information organizations” (including IMS Health, Dendrite and Verispan) purchase prescription records from pharmacies. According to the authors, IMS Health buys records of about 70 percent of prescriptions filled by community pharmacies. Pharmaceutical companies purchase the records and use them to identify high-prescribing doctors.

How the AMA earns millions by helping drug companies buy influence Prescription tracking records do not always identify doctors by name; in some cases they are identified by a state or federal license number or a pharmacy-specific identifier. To establish the identity of the prescribing doctors, pharmaceutical companies rely on the American Medical Association (AMA), which maintains a Physician Masterfile on every U.S. physician. Citing the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors wrote, “In 2005, database product sales, including an unknown amount from licensing Masterfile information, provided more than $44 million to the AMA.”

Once the high prescribers are identified, the drugs reps are then directed to reward those doctors with attention and gifts. The highest prescribing doctors are the ones with whom the drug reps work hardest to build relationships. According to Ahari, “The highest prescribers (9s and 10s) are every rep’s sugar mommies and daddies.” Lower prescribing doctors are hardly ignored, however; Ahari explained that he was taught to “pick a handful out and make them feel special enough” and then associate increased prescribing with personal attention and a reward such as dinner at a fine restaurant.

When doctors express skepticism about a certain drug, reps will take one of several approaches. One tactic is to present the doctors with journal articles that counter the doctor’s perceptions. “Armed with the articles and having hopefully scheduled a 20 minute appointment (so the doc can’t escape), I play dumb and have the doc explain to me the significance of my article,” wrote Ahari. The drug rep then asks the doctor to prescribe the medication based on his or her own explanation (to the sales rep) of the journal articles.

Yet another tactic, reserved for doctors who prefer a competing drug, is described by Ahari: “We force the doctors to constantly explain their prescribing rationale, which is tiresome. Our intent is to engage in discourse but also to wear down the doc until he or she simply agrees to try the product for specific instances.”

The pharmaceutical industry employs 100,000 drug reps whose job is, first and foremost, to sell drugs. Their tactics are on par with some of the most clever and potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world, including those used on political prisoners to convince them to denounce their home nations. Doctors are, in effect, being successfully targeted and influenced through advanced brainwashing campaigns designed to alter prescribing behavior and sell more high-profit drugs. Far from being immune to such techniques, it appears that physicians are remarkably susceptible to them. ______________________________________________________________________ http://www.newstarget.com/z021955.html Originally published July 30 2007 Secret drug company payments to doctors remain legal in 48 states by David Gutierrez

(NewsTarget) Only five states and the District of Columbia require that pharmaceutical companies report gifts they make to doctors, and even in these jurisdictions the laws are so poorly enforced that the details of these transactions remain a de facto secret, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Researchers examined public records from Vermont and Minnesota, the only two states that require disclosure by pharmaceutical companies and make that data available to the public. By studying the data from 2002 to 2004, the researchers hoped to gain a better understanding of how money moves from the pharmaceutical to the medical industry.

“What we really found was laws aren’t working,” said study author Joseph Ross, of the geriatrics department of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

The researchers found that while reported payments were quite high, the details of those transactions were not available. In other cases, reported payments were so low as to be suspicious. For example, GlaxoSmithKline claimed zero dollars spent in Vermont in the time period studied, yet the state attorney general listed the company as making more payments than any other. In Minnesota, Amgen recorded zero dollars in payments in 2002 or 2004, but more than $4 million in 2003.

Part of the reason for this inconsistency is that gifts of drugs or items not yet on the market can be classified as “trade secrets” and not reported. But Ross believes that this loophole is being exploited.

“To designate every payment made as a trade secret … seems improbable,” he said.

Pharmaceutical companies have been known to give doctors extravagant gifts including all-expense-paid vacations or gourmet dinners as part of their marketing campaigns. According to Dr. Harlan Krumholz, an associate professor at the Yale University School of Medicine, this presents a conflict of interest that the public should know about.

Ross agrees. “If both parties think this payment is appropriate, then this information should be made available to the public,” he said.