Re: Breakup of Physician, Drug Company Relationship Could Improve Health Care, Cut Co
For this project, interviews were conducted between September 1 and December 1, 2005. Questions asked of clinicians and nonclinical staff centered around the value of drug detailer visits to patients and the clinic, PERCEIVED staff benefits of visits to the staff, and losses if the clinic became pharma-free. Providers also were asked to evaluate QUALITATIVELY the usefulness of sampled medicines. Responses to interviews were summarized by inter- viewers and presented to the provider group to identify common THEMES and CONCERNS from pro- viders and staff. In particular, the provider group sought to understand the relative value and risks of continued interactions with industry representa- tives.
During the individual and group interviews, four themes emerged. The physicians were concerned about (1) the practice culture of seeing detailers, (2) the effect they had on staff morale, (3) sample expectations of patients and physicians, and (4) be- ing current on new drugs.
Please explain again how you QUANTITATIVELY evaluate themes, concerns and perceptions???
The only quantitative aspect of this study involves ONLY THE MOST OBVIOUS which is that branded meds are more expensive than generics.... BRILLIANT!!!
- Publicly demonstrating by repeated postings that one didn't know that Feudalism was a Medieval Economic System in repeated posts - Standard
- Publicly humiliating ones self by posting that having a Ford Taurus as a company car in a attempt to show that they have, "a great job" - next level
- Publicly humiliating oneself that they have discovered the "truth" about a Study published in a Peer Reviewed Journal published the organization representing the Second Largest groups of Specialist in the Country when actually they have found that "truth" by confusing an study published earlier in another journal and then repeatedly posting that as an argument against the latest study - almost there.
- Then, finally having been convinced, by repeated humiliation in a public forum, of the fact that they are quoting and critiquing the wrong study; then "cherry pick" quotes from the most recent article that was described as both "qualitative" and "quantitive" by the authors in the article while then critiquing a part of the study that was clearly qualitative by asking "Please explain again how you QUANTITATIVELY evaluate themes, concerns and perceptions???" when it is obvious to everyone but him that no claims or illusions of quantitativeness on the part of anyone was indicated; then mischaracterizing the quantitate part of the study by writing "The only quantitative aspect of this study involves ONLY THE MOST OBVIOUS which is that branded meds are more expensive than generics.... BRILLIANT!!!" when the quantitate part of the study not only clearly showed that generics were less expensive but also the extent to which, in a clinical setting, those generics can be substituted for overpriced branded products and the total costs that these overpriced, unneeded branded drugs screwed the US Healthcare system out of - PRICELESS.
You don't have a very good track record so far but I am willing to admit that you have finally stumbled on a "truth" (as they say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day.") so let's go with it. You wrote, "The only quantitative aspect of this study involves ONLY THE MOST OBVIOUS which is that branded meds are more expensive than generics.... BRILLIANT!!!" So let's take this, the facts from the study and combine them with an analysis based on a few assumptions and see where we land, "Shall we?"
For a "sample cabinet" of drugs":
# Drugs Cost Total
Pharma Drugs 46 $90 $4140
Generics 38 $22 $836
Pharma Drugs with no generic substitute 8 $90 $720
So the total cost of the "sample cabinet" filled with Pharma Drugs is $4140
And the total cost of the "sample cabinet" filled with Generics plus Pharma drugs that can't be replaced by Generics is $836 + $720 = $1556.
So the percentage increase in the cost of the drugs in the "sample cabinet" due to your efforts is ($4140 - $1156) / $4140 = 62%
Then, let's calculate what it costs the US Healthcare System to pay for you parasites:
The study says that there are 90,000 Pharma Reps in the US. And if we estimate that your costs are $300,000 / yr (that includes salary, bene's, travel, sales promos, gifts, speaker programs etc) then the total cost is 90,000 x $300,000 = $27B / yr.
So the US Health Care System spends $27 B / yr so that we pay 62% more for our drugs.
So, if we take the numbers from the study as a starting point then 62% of the revenue of Pharma should go away and with it, about 73% of the Pharma Sales Reps jobs and so should 73% of the 90,000 Pharma Rep jobs citied in the study so after the reductions we should have about 24,300.
What can we conclude about Pharma's history of developing new drugs?
In the study it was found that 73% of the drugs in the cabinet had Generic replacements. And, it takes what, about 15-20 years to bring a new drug to the market? So for at least 10-15 years before that period Pharmas were using their profit to develop and license drugs that they KNEW would be only treatments for drugs already treated by Generics then, for the next 15-20 years they still failed to develop new drugs while continueing to manipulate the medical system in order to get Docs to spend more on their branded drugs rather than write scripts for Generics that would have had the same effects. The only trade-offs will be, over a period of time, a significant reduction in Pharma revenues and profits and since Pharma has used those profits over they last 30-40 years to mostly develop branded drugs to compete with generics the US market will not lose any drug development from which we will benefit if we were to use generics instead.
Then your derision of the qualitative portion of the study seems to indicate that you think that these results should be questioned. Do you really think that asking the questions in a different way to a larger group of Dr's and Nurses would change the results? Do you really think that more, many, most, of them have a higher opinion of Pharma Reps function?
But then, what about the concepts of "free market" and "free will" that you keep bringing up? Do you pay significantly more for your car before you "shop" around. What if the only information that was readily available was from the salesmen at car lots?
I think that we can all agree that as result of practicing those concepts everyone is to allow everyone to pay the lowest price that they can. And study seems to agree. "Part of what allows the change, the researchers said, is that information on new medications is now available in many other forums. These may have less bias and be more evidence-based than the material traditionally provided by the pharmaceutical industry, which wanted to sell the latest product. In the Madras clinic, the physicians replaced information previously supplied by drug reps with monthly meetings to stay current on new medications, based on peer-reviewed, rather than promotional literature. "In the past 5-10 years there's been more of a move toward what we call 'academic detailing,' in which universities and other impartial sources of information can provide accurate information without bias," said Daniel Hartung, assistant professor in the OSU College of Pharmacy. "This is being supported by some states and the federal government, and it's a move in the right direction."
And even the ACA, or as people like you like to call it "Obama Care" does not limit free will it only limits the amount of tax dollars that can be spent in Fed Govt funded Healthcare programs so that less expensive Generics will be prioritized. If a patient is prescribed a generic by a Dr but wants to pay for the increased costs then they can by all means, exercise thier free will and go to the free market and buy them with non-tax payer money.
Much of this post have simply been cut and pasted from other posts in this thread. But after your many silly posts filled with useless drivel it was constructed to summarize them after you admitted that the study was factually correct.
What I found interesting was the information cited in the sources in the article.
