Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5806
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
Education and promotion: another week of debate
Pharma in Focus ( Australia) 2006 Aug 7
http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/opinion.asp?opinionid=116
Notes:
Ral[ph Faggotter’s Comments:
“ It recognises that without pharmaceutical industry financial support
doctors would probably remain ignorant of the latest treatments and
that, in fact, pharma company educational support is a key driver of
improvement in medical practice.”
This is an extraordinary distortion of the logic behind taking direct funding of educational events away from the pharmaceutical industry.
It is precisely because “pharma company educational support” IS SUCH A POOR “driver of
improvement in medical practice.” that the idea is being considered.
It could also be argued that the complete removal of drug company funding from the post-graduate education arena, to be relaced by self-funding or government funding, would be an even better proposition.
Full text:
Education and promotion: another week of debate
http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/opinion.asp?opinionid=116
Debate over the legitimacy of pharmaceutical companies’ relationships
with doctors continued last week with a suggestion that funding be
pooled and controlled outside industry
Last week as debate continued over pharma industry influence on medicos’
prescribing decisions courtesy of a study by the University of NSW, the
suggestion came forward that perhaps pharmaceutical companies should
contribute their educational budgets to a central fund charged with
managing ‘clean’ educational activity.
The idea appears to be that a pooled educational fund would be
independent of any one company and not associated with any one product.
It would be managed by ‘unbiased’ staff who would allocate funds without
pharma company influence.
The suggestion is interesting for a number of reasons.
It recognises that without pharmaceutical industry financial support
doctors would probably remain ignorant of the latest treatments and
that, in fact, pharma company educational support is a key driver of
improvement in medical practice.
It implies that despite the mud slung at pharma company
educational/promotional activity it is useful enough for its potential
loss to be a significant problem for patients and doctors alike.
It appears to have faith that the ‘influence’ allegedly exercised by
pharmacos on individual practitioners would simply disappear if their
cash was diverted into a general educational fund rather than be
transferred to the managers of the fund.
It presumes that pharmacos would be willing to support such a fund or
could be forced to do so, presumably by some type of educational tax.
But most of all it recognises that education about the latest treatments – or new ways of using existing treatments – is not going to be
sufficiently funded by doctors or patients and certainly not by the
government (the National Prescribing Service aside). The pharma industry
has to do it.
So long as this is the case, pharma can expect to be subject to scrutiny
and criticism of its educational/promotional activities in what is, in
reality, a battle for control.
One side – pharma – has funds and a need to undertake promotion, the
other has little money so uses media clout and the tactic of public
embarrassment to try to control that promotion.
So long as this is the case, activities and campaigns such as those we
have seen over the last few weeks are likely to continue and so long as
the media regards pharma as the villain of the piece, pressure will
mount for ever greater levels of control on the prehaps naive basis that
pharma will continue to contribute regardless.
