This is the part of the article that I like the best. "In one of the first reports of its type --".
Get it, there will be many, many more. They are onto to you guys like a blood hound on the trail of an escaped sexual predator.
I hope future studies included more than just the opinion of 3 docs and 3 nurses. LOL!!!
Our jobs as Pharma Rep is rapidly proving to be useless to MDs every day. No study required.
I've got news for you. The study doesn't show that a "Pharma Rep's" job is rapidly proving to be useless to MDs" it proves that Pharma companies pay reps to be detrimental to the US Healthcare System in 73% of the cases for the counts of drugs and 62% of the costs of drugs for the case of the "sample cabinet". Conversely it proves that the Pharma Companies can only morally and ethically justify your existence in 16% of the cases for the counts of the drug and 42% of the costs of the drugs in the "sample cabinet".
So in the rational sense, only 16% of the 90,000 Pharma Sales Reps or 14,400, can be justified.
This study, and others coming as promised must terrify Pharma management because it explicitly proves that 62% of their Revenue is BOGUS. It shows that a significant part of US Healthcare spending isn't based on healthcare outcomes but is a result of a run-of-the-mill, bullshit slinging sales and marketing effort akin to selling Captain Crunch to children on television.
If you Rep a drug that doesn't have a Generic substitute, you can sleep well. Otherwise you are a well paid thief who no one cares how you sleep.
The study is small and meaningless. That particular office is free to ban reps while the majority of the rest of The United States are free to continue to participate in The Free Market.
"This study wasn't the "opinion" of anyone. They were empirical facts as found by "researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington" and published by "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.".
This was a qualitative study in which data could be observed but not measured. Qualitative studies, by definition, are about opinions and perceptions, NOT FACTS. Bottom line... This is a weak study and it is quite embarrassing that anyone would uphold this study as some landmark work of science from which you could draw broad conclusions.
Look, lets be honest here. The business of Big Pharma is to provide expensive, new, patent protected treatments that will optimize profits. Sometimes these result in major advances in therapy (can you spell Gleevec?)
Very often, however, they represent nothing more than life cycle management for compounds that have lost patent. The result is increased health care expenditure.
Even with new compounds, they are often me-too products. Back in the day, how many ACE inhibitors were there. More recently there were three aromatase inhibitors which, now that patents have expired, are all viewed as being equivalent.
Of course all this development only increases the average cost of bringing new treatments to the public. Marketing will always find some slight benefits to trumpet will plastering over toxicities (including economic).
Drug pricing is another interesting phenomenon and really doesn't have much to do with cost of production. Basically, nothing new comes out at a more affordable cost. Rather we hear terms like value proposition and see a "whatever the market will bear" model with new pharmaceuticals commanding a price premium often based on equivalence (non-inferiority) and the concept that all innovation deserves higher prices . This might be fitting for collectible art or baseball cards but has no place in areas such a food or health.
You are incredibly dense, even for a Rep.
The results of the study contained no polls. The fact that 38 or the 46 drugs in the "sample cabinet" had generic substitutes and made the "sample cabinet" 62% more expensive aren't opinions. They are facts.
And it is also a fact that and the "destructive effects . . of Obama Care" is only on people like you.
Look, lets be honest here. The business of Big Pharma is to provide expensive, new, patent protected treatments that will optimize profits. Sometimes these result in major advances in therapy (can you spell Gleevec?)
Very often, however, they represent nothing more than life cycle management for compounds that have lost patent. The result is increased health care expenditure.
Even with new compounds, they are often me-too products. Back in the day, how many ACE inhibitors were there. More recently there were three aromatase inhibitors which, now that patents have expired, are all viewed as being equivalent.
Of course all this development only increases the average cost of bringing new treatments to the public. Marketing will always find some slight benefits to trumpet will plastering over toxicities (including economic).
Drug pricing is another interesting phenomenon and really doesn't have much to do with cost of production. Basically, nothing new comes out at a more affordable cost. Rather we hear terms like value proposition and see a "whatever the market will bear" model with new pharmaceuticals commanding a price premium often based on equivalence (non-inferiority) and the concept that all innovation deserves higher prices . This might be fitting for collectible art or baseball cards but has no place in areas such a food or health.
You are incredibly dense, even for a Rep.
The results of the study contained no polls. The fact that 38 or the 46 drugs in the "sample cabinet" had generic substitutes and made the "sample cabinet" 62% more expensive aren't opinions. They are facts.
And it is also a fact that and the "destructive effects . . of Obama Care" is only on people like you.
You may be the idiot here. The poster didn't say it contained polls but SEEMS LIKE the reported results were apples and oranges, or seeking to garner a question to the defined anwer desired.
Aren't we all excited the IRS will be the arm of the government executing Obamacare?! Just think, you may go to prision for not paying your healthcare bill, because of tax evasion.
So who is the idiot, someone who actually READS the fucking article or someone who writes stuff like SEEMS LIKE and then others who defend it. When you see a Doc to talk about a drug do you think it would impress him if if was obvious that you hadn't even read the label?
Grow up you whining fucking hypocritical fucks. The facts are this from he study: 38 of 46 of the drugs in "sample cabinet" WERE EXAMPLES OF THIEVERY OF 62% of the total cost of that "sample cabinet" PERPETUATED BY PHARMA ASSISTED BY PARASITES LIKE YOU. There isn't any SEEMS LIKE or guess work or opinion. The companies that you work for spent $100's of millions of dollars to develop all 38 of them knowing that they would be, or had a very good chance to be, practically identical in effect as the drugs that were going to become generic soon but new that they could send scumbags like you out there to convince Docs to write scrips for them. It is explicitly stated in the study the Docs that practice in an environment where "academic detailing" were much less effected to your corrosive influence.
But what I find really pathetic is that it study sheds the bright light of day on you shady cockroaches but at least cockroaches have the manners to scurry away and hide when exposed. You guys set here and quibble about how bright the sun is and if you are exposed.
This study tagged you guys on the chin like a right hook from a heavy weight opponent. And, as the article says there is more to come. So why don't you turn to a more honorable like running email scams to old ladies to take away their retirement money.
SEEMS LIKE, Apples and oranges - what a pathetic excuse for a sense of honesty, decency and morality you have. Those parts of your character must have atrophied while you were a Pharma Rep. Probably the only reason that you can sleep at night.
"Madras Medical Group is a privately owned family medicine practice located in rural Oregon. There are 5 family physicians and a PA-C who provide the full spectrum of family medicine services, including obstetrics. The clinic also employs 18 supporting staff. Madras Medical Group is the largest medical provider in a catchment area serving 20,000 people."
What rep would go that far out to see a FP group of 5 in a town of 20K? Not a top group i'm sure. And only 1-2 lunches a month. Basically, it's a quick hit group, sample or info drop and get out, not important.
Article also mentioned...They didn't have many branded samples and they estimated the cost....didn't mention the "free drug" plans most pharma companies offer rural patients....how would they know, they don't see reps. Basically, one doc in the clinic lead this campaign (if you know the group you'll know which one - has a serious chip on his shoulder for pharma) He even made the staff read articles that made pharma look bad even quoting the VIOXX case over and over and broadly claiming that's what reps do.
Worst piece of "journalism" i've seen since third grade newsletter...see article on "Why I like Cookies"
