Free Newsletter
Sens. would dispatch pharma anti-reps
Should the feds send out their own pharma reps? Wednesday, the Senate Special Committee on Aging will convene to discuss "academic detailing," which is essentially a straight talk express for pharma. Special reps fan out with their own--presumably objective--educational materials to help counteract the naturally biased info each drug company provides on its own products. Some states are doing it with mixed results; some critics say these so-called straight talkers actually are trying to push generics over brand-name meds even when newer meds are better.
Sen. Herb Kohl, who chairs the committee, and Sen. Dick Durbin plan to sponsor a bill this spring that would create a federal corps of academic detailers. "The industry's educational outreach is essentially a marketing program, and evidence shows that doctors' prescribing patterns can be heavily influenced," the committee's statement about the hearing said. An academic detailing program would give docs and other prescribers a source of unbiased info "based on scientific research."
- see the Pharmalot item
- check out the back-story on Pennsylvania's academic detailing program
Related Articles:
States fight drug reps with reps. Report
Dr. Drug Rep tells all. Report
Rep decries off-label marketing "loophole." Report
Comments
Perhaps before going down the path of using Counter-detailing, Congress should consider a ban on advertising of legend drugs. This biggest push to use "new" drugs comes from the consumer who saw it on TV. The next thing they should do is stop approving "new" drugs that aren't new...R or L enantiomers of a previously release racemic mixture aren't new and shouldn't be patent protected. Creating a pro-drug of a previously released entity isn't a new drug...it becomes its predecessor in the body. These types of drugs cost very little in R&D and yet extend the length of time the public is fleeced with the high price of "innovation".
I totally agree with you. I've been saying this for years that enantiomers and pro-drugs aren't new entities. Why should XYZ drug company get a patent for a new medication because it figured out how to remove the R enantiomer from it's process. That isn't a new patent, it's an improvement on an the same process.
I thought the pharma industry was already doing this with Medical Science Liaisons? This seems like duplication to me!
Post new comment
Paid Research Reports
- Stakeholder Opinions: Vaccines in Emerging Markets (Asia) - Opportunities in China, India, South Korea and Taiwan
- Big Pharma Performance Before, During and Beyond the Global Recession
- Optimizing Lifecycle Management: Maximizing commercial lifespan through label expansion and combination products
- The CRO Market Outlook: Emerging markets, leading players and future trends
- Pharmaceutical Sales Force Effectiveness Strategies
- Commercial Insight: Influenza Vaccines and Antivirals - The pandemic's long-term impact





