corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2858

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Roner L.
Are details really having the desired effect?
Eye For Pharma 2005 Dec 7
http://www.washington.edu/news/archive/id/6830


Notes:

Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:

This article suggests that drug detailing may not be as cost-effective as was formerly thought.


Full text:

Are details really having the desired effect?
(12/7/2005)

Print versionSend to a friend!

Although pharma companies spend nearly $25 billion per year promoting new drugs and distributing free samples to doctors, new research shows such marketing tactics have little impact on physicians and their prescribing behavior.

Direct-to-physician activities account for the bulk of spending, with $5.3 billion going to physician detailing visits. And free drug samples distributed during these visits are valued at roughly $16.4 billion.

“As the cost of prescription drugs continues to escalate, increased attention is being focused on the role of pharmaceutical marketing practices as a cause of higher drug prices,” says Robert Jacobson, professor of marketing at the University of Washington Business School and co-author of the paper study in the December issue of Management Science.

“The concern that pharmaceutical marketing practices compromise physician integrity and have exacerbated increases in public health costs has prompted government actions at both the federal and state levels,” Jacobson adds. “The key public policy issue is the extent to which the industry’s promotional tactics lead to an increase in appropriate versus inappropriate use of drugs in a cost-effective manner.”

In the study, researchers analyzed data for three drugs widely prescribed by some 74,000 physicians over a two-year period to investigate the effect of pharmaceutical sales representatives on physician prescribing behavior. For each of the drugs in the study, Jacobson and Natalie Mizik, assistant professor of marketing at Columbia University, assessed the effects of changes in the numbers of sales calls and free samples on the number of new prescriptions the physician issued.

Although the effects of detailing and sampling differ across drugs, the impact of the marketing activities on physician prescribing behavior ranged only from very small to modest for each of the drugs studied. For the three drugs in the study, researchers found it would take, on average, from 0.5 to 6.5 more visits by pharmaceutical sales representatives to induce one new prescription. And it would require 6.5 to 73 additional free samples to induce one new prescription.

According to Jacobson, for the largest-selling drug in the study, one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States, it would take approximately three additional visits by a pharmaceutical sales representative to induce one new prescription. And it would take 26 additional free samples to induce one new prescription.

Jacobson says that, contrary to popular belief, physicians are not easy targets readily persuaded by salespeople, but rather are tough sells as evidenced by the minimal influence of sales activities on their prescribing behavior. According to Jacobson, the most important factor explaining the limited effect of sales representatives is that physicians know they have other sources of information. Scientific papers, advice from colleagues and a physician’s own training and experience also influence prescribing practices and, he says, most physicians view these sources as far more reliable and trustworthy than salespeople.

“Additionally, many physicians are skeptical of or hold negative attitudes toward sales representatives,” he says. “Physicians recognize that information presented is biased toward the promoted drug and is unlikely to be objective or even accurate. Thus, physicians often discount information received from a sales representative. As physicians have access to alternative sources of information, which are more highly regarded, it is no wonder that the salesperson’s influence is minimal.”

Jacobson adds that pharmaceutical marketing aimed directly at consumers might be expected to have greater impact. And as evidenced by the data from IAG outlined in today’s second feature, consumers find at least some pharma promotional messages memorable and motivating.

Certainly some food for thought as marketing budgets come under scrutiny for in the New Year…

Author: Lisa Roner, Editor, eyeforpharma Briefing

If you have any comments on this article, please contact:

Lisa Roner
eyeforpharma Briefing Editor
lroner@eyeforpharma.com

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909