Tag Archives: marketing

Pharmaceutical Prescription Practices Tied to Pharmaceutical Payments to Doctors

Posted on by

A recent buzz has developed regarding a ProPublica study showing an association between the amount of money physicians receive from pharmaceutical companies and their likelihood of recommending brand (rather than generic) prescription drugs.

Here’s a link to the full story: Now There’s Proof: Docs Who Take Company Cash Tend to Prescribe More Brand-Name Meds

“The more money doctors receive from drug and medical device companies, the more brand-name drugs they tend to prescribe, a new ProPublica analysis shows. Even a meal can make a difference.”

Here’s a link to NPR’s summary:  Drug-Company Payments Mirror Doctors’ Brand-Name Prescribing  An excerpt:

“A ProPublica analysis has found that doctors who receive payments from the medical industry do indeed prescribe drugs differently on average than their colleagues who don’t. And the more money they receive, the more brand-name medications they tend to prescribe.

We matched records on payments from pharmaceutical and medical device makers in 2014 with corresponding data on doctors’ medication choices in Medicare’s prescription drug program.

Doctors who got money from drug and device makers prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn’t, our analysis showed. Even those who simply got meals from companies prescribed more brand-name drugs, on average.”

My take: Prescription patterns vary widely among physicians and often for good reason.  At the same time, it is likely that in many cases variation in prescription patterns is influenced by frequent contact with pharmaceutical companies.  As a consequence, this has the potential to make patients question whether their physician always has their best interest in mind and the potential to increase healthcare costs.

Related blog posts:

Law Library Ceiling, Univ Michigan

Law Library Ceiling, Univ Michigan

Dollars for Doctors

Posted on by

A recent NPR report, Industry Payments To Doctors Are Ingrained, Federal Data Show, provides a link detailing payments by drug and device companies to U.S. doctors and teaching hospitals.  Doctors may be paid for promotional speaking, consulting, travel expenses, and meals.

If you want to see how much is reported for each doctor, check out the ProPublica Dollars for Doctors database.

Here’s a screenshot:

Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 8.24.03 AM

The article notes that the a close relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies is important.  “Collaboration between physicians and biopharmaceutical professionals is critical to improving the health and quality of life of patients.”

Take-home point: Some financial relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies lead to important improvements in drug (or device) development; other relationships may alter prescribing habits without apparent patient benefit. Will this information empower patients to ask why their physicians has close ties to the pharmaceutical industry?

Related blog post:

Marketing to Doctors -Informative Satire

Posted on by

One of my colleagues recently shared a youtube link that I recommend highly to anyone who is concerned about the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and physicians.  As with any good piece of satire, it is both funny and thought-provoking.  As one would question the impartiality of politicians who receive funds from constituents with a specific agenda, likewise patients may question whether physicians are unduly influenced by their relationship with pharmaceutical companies.

For those too busy to enjoy the entire ~17 minutes, watch the last three minutes:

 

Food Marketing Detectable on Functional MRI

Posted on by

The applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are burgeoning.  One recent usage has been on the effect of food logos on brain activation in obese and healthy children (J Pediatr 2013; 162: 759-64 & editorial 672-73).

After a pilot validation study to select food and nonfood logos, the authors recruited 10 healthy children with mean body mass index (BMI) at 50th percentile and 10 obese children with mean BMI at the ~98 percentile.  After completing reports on measures of self-control, the children underwent functional MRI while viewing food and nonfood logos.

The key findings were that healthy weight children, when viewing food logos, demonstrated greater activation in brain regions associated with cognitive control/self-control including Brodmann’s area 10 and the inferior frontal gyrus bilaterally.  Obese children showed greater activation in ‘reward’ regions of the brain when shown food logos.

While these studies should be considered preliminary due to the small sample size, they are intriguing nevertheless.  The editorial takes these findings and places them into context.

  • Children view ~6000 commercials annually; the majority feature calorie-dense and nutrient poor foods
  • “Any food can be marketed in any way, to any age group, and even the most vulnerable demographic groups can be targeted.”
  • “It is tempting to suggest interventions…to help resist marketed foods.”  However, the author notes that this strategy will fail due to increases in the “toxic influence” of advertising.
  • “Food brands are already commonplace in …sporting facilities, schools..in online advergaming..and in social media.”
  • “Targeted advertising has been related to greater consumption of high-calorie foods (eg. fast foods) by African-American and Hispanic children”
  • Policy initiatives “to turn back the tide of childhood obesity” are needed; studies that show a direct impact on children’s brains may be persuasive in compelling change.  Without these changes, companies will continue doing neuroscience research and will exploit their findings.

Bottom-line:  If one uses an analogy to tobacco, it is not quite 1964 for the food industry.

“In 1964 the Surgeon General of the U.S. (the chief doctor for the country) wrote a report about the dangers of cigarette smoking. He said that the nicotine and tar in cigarettes cause lung cancer. In 1965 the Congress of the U.S. passed the Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act. It said that every cigarette pack must have a warning label on its side stating ‘Cigarettes may be hazardous to your health.'” History of Tobacco – Health & Literacy Special Collection

Related blog links: