Pharma Marketing Trends: Stanford Says No Free Anything; Senate Considering Limiting DTC Ads; Merck Report Reaction
Not Even A Pen: Stanford University is instituting a new policy aimed at curbing the influence and access of drug reps on physician-decision-making. The new policy, set to go into effect on October 1 will:
- Ban doctors from accepting samples and publishing articles “ghost-written†by industry contractors
- Prohibit doctors from accepting pens, mugs and other small gifts
- Sales reps will be banned from areas where patient education and treatment occur
Commentary: Does the Stanford move signal a trend? With many common marketing practices being proscribed what methods will pharma turn to drive sales? A few options include:
- More public relations (See this article from HealthCareVox for more.)
- More eMarketing (See this article from HealthCareVox for more.)
Law Firm Clears Merck; Critics Dubious: After 20 months and $21 million, former judge John S. Martin, Jr. has cleared Merck’s senior management of wrongdoing in the marketing and promotion of the withdrawn drug Vioxx. In Martin’s report, he asserts that the sales team, not leadership was responsible for conducting aggressive and unscrupulous marketing tactics.
Unsurprisingly, Merck’s critics have dubbed the so-called “Martin Report†a “whitewash.†Mark Lanier, who is currently working on a class action lawsuit against Merck said that the report “an absurd, expensive PR (public relations) stunt” and wondered if anyone would consider “a jury independent if I paid them $21 million.”
Commentary: While the controversy over the report will continue to swirl, what’s more interesting to me are the changes Merck made (and is continuing to make) to its marketing practices. The Martin report listed a number of programs Merck initiated in 2001 as part of its “Culture of Compliance†initiative. These included:
- Reducing the number of physicians speaking on behalf of Merck for CME and educational purposes
- Establishing limits for speaker meals and other activities
- Removing marketing personnel from decision-making roles re: grants to medical schools
- Only funding CME through reputable accredited bodies
Merck has said that it is considering other ways to separate marketing from its scientific endeavors.
Senate Considering Limits On DTC Advertising: The Senate is currently considering bill S.3807, the “Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2006.†The bill outlines a strategy for reducing the risk of prescription drugs by placing a moratorium on DTC advertising for a two-year period after the FDA approves a drug. [Via Medpundit]
Commentary: We’ll see whether/how this bill is amended and put up for a vote. In addition, there will be a lot of wrangling over this legislation if it ever reaches a Senate/House conference. Expect drug company lobbyists to closely watch this bill and push for changes.
December 16th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
re: “not even a pen”
When I see this sort of restrictive activity on the part of an institution such as Stanford University, I always wonder what is the actual motivation. Often the institution is seeking to limit physician (and therefore patient) access to a wider range of medications. The primary motivation is financial. Pharma reps are generaly regarded by administrators as working to overcome the ever increasing control the institution places on the physicians which they employ. Institutions rarely admit that the main issue is the desire to control prescribing. They usually say that the restrictions are the result of the negative impact the pharmaceutical representaives have on objectivity. Informed prescribers and patients drain the bank account.