The state’s senate passed a proposal to license pharmaceutical sales representatives the way other professionals who have an impact on people’s health should. Licensing would prohibit the rep from providing perks like gifts and trips to physicians and institutions.
The journalist reporting this story assumed that this ban would disrupt sales representatives’ activities because they “often favor discussing their companies’ products in social settings” and pay doctors for attending “educational” (journalist’s own emphasis) with trinkets like pens and pads.
Dr. Joseph Gerstein was a TAP whistleblower many years ago and said that pharma companies were not interested in education because companies did not compensate reps on their clinical accuracy and competence – but on how much they increase sales.
I don’t think being clinical competent could be mutually exclusive from increasing sales, as I’ve said before, but this appears to be a tough idea to grasp amidst media sensationalism.
Some doctors may not like this idea, because they don’t want to be limited from receiving perks that do benefit patients, including information.
A surprising opposition to drug rep licensing came from Marcia Angell, pharma critic and author of how pharma rips off citizens with me-too drugs and high prices. Angell isn’t opposing in sympathy with pharma reps, she thinks it’s inappropriate because licensing would suggest that reps are legitimate educators of doctors. But Angell does wonder if licensing is “better than nothing.”
I do applaud Angell for pointing out that doctors themselves do ask for inducements. Angell said that drug companies aren’t the sole party “bribing.”
Licensing would require pharmaceutical representatives be trained and pay a licensing fee. This licensing fee would be paid to the attorney general’s office and Board of Registration in Pharmacy.
I knew there would be money at the bottom of all this, no matter what philosophical or ethical or moral arguments are being thrown out to justify the proposal.