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: 9344

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: Journal Article

Smith MK, Gumbhir AK.
Perceptions of the 1987 Prescription Drug Marketing Act's impact on hospital pharmacy and drug distribution systems
ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting 1993 Dec; 28:


Abstract:

The perceptions of 20 hospital pharmacists, 17 research oriented drug manufacturers, and 24 drug wholesalers were evaluated regarding the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and its impact on drug diversion, discriminatory pricing, and drug marketing and distribution. Written responses to a six-part questionnaire were analyzed and subgroup ANOVA f-ratios were calculated. Hospital pharmacists’ views differed significantly from manufacturers’ and/or wholesalers’ in that the Act reduced diversion, changed drug storage requirements, excessively cost consumers, and that multi-tier pricing is appropriate for teaching hospitals, not-for-profit institutions, and all hospitals and for volume discounts. Overall, the Act was perceived to have reduced drug diversion, not impacted multi-tier pricing, and changed drug sampling and product returns procedures.

 

  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








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963