Thanks for the words of encouragement...I have been a rep for 17 years and have some good relationships with my doctors. This job has become very hard with the media, patients and office staff at times. Not to mention our own industry association.
Embarrassed to be in pharma
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Thanks for the words of encouragement...I have been a rep for 17 years and have some good relationships with my doctors. This job has become very hard with the media, patients and office staff at times. Not to mention our own industry association.
*************
Would this be another reason you are embarrassed? Post was taken from the NNVC (Nanoviricides) board on investorshub.com:
This article is just one example on how big pharmas can put profits ahead of people, so we must be very careful on any deal we make to prevent a big pharma from locking up our tech under the guise of "working with us"...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-eyedrugs28-2008aug28,0,4324208.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Study outcome won't sway Genentech on use of Avastin as eye drug
Genentech won't seek approval of Avastin to treat macular degeneration, even though it's much cheaper than Lucentis.
By Kevin Freking
The Associated Press
August 28, 2008
WASHINGTON — What does a company do when there's anecdotal evidence that two of its drugs are equally effective in treating a leading cause of blindness in the elderly, one costing patients $60 per treatment and the other $2,000?
In the case of Genentech Inc., nothing.
The South San Francisco company declined to seek federal approval for the cheaper drug, Avastin, to treat the wet form of age-related macular degeneration, or AMD. Nor would it help finance -- or cooperate with -- a National Eye Institute study comparing the effectiveness and safety of Avastin, a cancer drug, and the more expensive eye drug, Lucentis.
The financial stakes stemming from the study are huge. Medicare officials estimate that there could be 50,000 or more additional cases of macular degeneration a year.
Treating just one year's worth of new patients with Lucentis would cost $1.2 billion a year, compared with $60 million if they're treated with Avastin, Medicare officials said.
Genentech is making no promises that it will act upon the clinical trial's final results, which are expected in two to three years.
The company has raised concerns that safety issues have not been properly addressed. In particular, the trial doesn't have enough patients to show some of the rare but serious side effects that could occur with use of the cheaper drug, the company contends.
"No matter the outcome, we continue to believe Lucentis is the most appropriate treatment for wet AMD," said Genentech spokeswoman Krysta Pellegrino.
Wet AMD occurs when abnormal blood vessels leak blood and fluid affecting the part of the eye that allows a person to see fine detail.
Many eye doctors believe that Avastin works just as well in treating macular degeneration even though it hasn't been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. It's not unusual for drugs to be used off-label -- that is, for treating diseases other than ones the drug was approved for.
Both drugs target a protein that causes blood vessels in the back of the eye to grow, but Lucentis is a much smaller molecule. It was specifically designed to penetrate the retina.
Companies routinely help finance clinical trials, but such trials almost never pit two products from the same company against each other.
"It's a very unusual situation where a company would be trying to compare its own drugs," said Dr. Frederick Ferris, director of clinical research at the National Eye Institute. "I'm not sure usual situations are all that relevant in this particular case."
Still, health officials pleaded with Genentech to participate in the clinical trial comparing the two drugs. At one point the company considered doing so by providing the medicines in masked, identical vials, according to e-mail exchanges obtained by the Senate Aging Committee.
Avastin was approved to treat colon cancer in February 2004. It's a genetically engineered product that inhibits the growth of blood vessels, thus denying tumors blood, oxygen and other nutrients needed for growth.
It's expensive, costing $2,200 for a typical treatment for colon cancer. However, for treating eye disease, pharmacy compounding firms split the drug into many tiny doses suitable for injection into the eye. That's what brings the price down to about $60 per injection.
Dr. Philip Rosenfeld, who has treated hundreds of his eye patients in South Florida with Avastin, said the study could put doctors at ease about potential litigation if they prescribe Avastin to treat wet AMD instead of the FDA-approved drug, Lucentis.
"I see this as a public health study not only for us but for the whole world. It gives everyone the license to use both drugs interchangeably," Rosenfeld said. "Clearly, for Medicare it would make economic sense to put preference on the use of Avastin."
As lawmakers await the results of the clinical trial, they are already considering what steps, if any, could be taken to steer the Medicare program to the less costly drug -- if it's indeed comparable.
An internal memorandum from congressional aides to the Senate Aging Committee's chairman, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), recommends that lawmakers consider urging Medicare officials to pay no more for one drug than the other when it comes to treating the eye disease.
Medicare's contractors already have authority to pay the same amount for items that achieve much the same result -- such as hormones used to treat prostate cancer.
If the drugs are shown to work comparably, "it would surprise me if the contractors did not quickly use that concept," said Dr. Steve Phurrough, director of coverage and analysis at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Pellegrino said it was too early in the comparison trial to comment about the staff's recommendation.
She said Genentech's pricing for Lucentis reflected the cost of developing the drug, which the FDA approved in June 2006. The development program included a clinical trial involving more than 6,000 patients at a cost of more than $45,000 a patient.
I am a transition success story! So it's possible but it is a serious challenge.
In 2005 I left a Specialty Position which provided me with an income of about $120,000 per year. I was sick of not being able to advance, not being respected. I was one of those types that was very clinical and tried to sell to the correct patient type.
I left the industry-period-I had no job and I dedicated myself to finding a new job. I was headed towards Medical Equipment (where I actually started my career). No one would even consider me and it sucked, especially since my first job was with Smith and Nephew! I got all the same negative responses that have been stated in previous posts.
My plan had been to stay at the same pay range which after 3 months of interviewing and no hard offer on the table became obsolete.
As concern turned to despair I went to work for an organization that was affiliated with the FDA. My job was as a telemarketer that bought in $48,000 per year. Yes that's right-I thought my pharma job sucked! I hadn't made this little since I graduated college 15 years prior. Plus I had not had an income for 5 months during my job search.
Let me tell you folk, I held a second job on the side in a retail store just to keep my house; I took public transportation everywhere because I didn't have a car. Every luxury I knew left my life. I worked 24/7.
For those of you who know the politics of trying to get noticed or promoted in pharma and for those of you who actually did learn how to sell in Pharma training-this is where luck and hard work will kick in. About 3 months into my new job, my boss, as well as everyone up to the CEO of the organization was thrilled with my success in my telemarketing role. I was called in to meet with the CEO and I was promoted to an outside sales position the next month where the base salary was now $65,000 plus some perks (Thank god at least I was on my way).
Over the next year I called on every skill set I ever learned in the past. Today (I have been with the organization almost 2 years), I am the Director of Sales and I am being groomed to become the new VP of Sales and Marketing. I have surpassed my original income level and I know that I can now work for any company.
As you can tell by the length of this post the journey was anything but easy. It was humiliating and hard but it proves that you can move on. Hopefully my post brings attention to the pitfalls as well as the rewards of changing your pharma career path and hopefully my story gave you a good laugh on the way.
Very inspirational story! I'm still trapped in this industry (for 10 years now) but not for much longer. I just purchased a car and I am applying for positions outside of the pharma industry. I am an excellent salesperson and I know I have the skill sets to be successful anywhere. I am just bored in this industry and tired of watching it go down the crapper.
It started going down the crapper when idiot managers started hiring idiots!
Why do people love to hate pharma?
September 9, 2008
By Tracy Staton
Tags Trust Deficit public trust public opinion DTC advertising
Tools Email Print Comment Contact Author
Pharma took a plunge in its ethical reputation over the past year, according to a new report from the research firm Covalence. What's hurting the industry's image? Lawsuits and settlements and fines, for one thing. The safety questions around the Eli Lilly antipsychotic med Zyprexa and Merck/Schering-Plough cholesterol drug Vytorin--and the companies' handling of the data about those drugs. The dust-up over Paxil and its link to suicidal thinking didn't help, either.
Plus, the media is either tired of covering pharma's good deeds, or it's distracted by election-year politics. Either way, drugmakers' philanthropic efforts aren't getting much play, Covalence found.
Meanwhile, AdWeek took an in-depth look at why pharma seems to be the industry consumers love to hate. And one of the big reasons is the fact that people don't want to be sick enough to need drugs. Sifting through a bevy of recent surveys and studies, the article also concludes that safety scares undermine people's faith in the drugs themselves. And the public doesn't trust pharma to share adverse info on their meds, further undermining that faith--and hurting pharma's rep.
Unlike other industries, pharma can't necessarily mount a warm-and-fuzzy image campaign to turn public opinion around. DTC rules govern how drugmakers advertise their wares. One thing pharma can do, however, is to target its messages more directly to the people who need them, perhaps via the Internet or social networking, the magazine says.
Ah, DTC ads-should be run right after the used car huckster ones as they are so closely related. Their marketing people are on same page.
I agree. We had to watch two sleazy Cialis ads last night while watching tv with friends.
I did pharma for 4.5 years and have been in device since. Sometimes people think I am a drug rep because of my suit/briefcase in the clinic or hospital.. I cringe and get defensive. I have been ashamed of my old pharma days for a while now. Just thought I would add my 2 cents.
First have the patient drink their water, then place the tablet in the mouth, chew, and swallow. Dumb ass cheerleader that got hired due to killer body and monster tits! God Bless pharma and the hot reps!
- ~T~ Oct 09, 2008 at 12:21: PM
Apologies in advance for wasting bandwidth by quoting this long ass article BUT what a conundrum!
It'll be interesting to read the outcome of this comparison trial in a couple of years. Wonder what will happen leading up to the results and after the results are published?
Will or can the government continue to strongly encourage Genetech to file a supplemental NDA? Will Genetech cave to pressures exerted and just eat its R&D costs for the benefit of humanity? Ahem..right. If no supplemental NDA is obtained by Genetech and CMS goes ahead and provides the drug to CMS recipients based on one small comparison study, who pays the litigation costs when possible AE's surface (a given in our litigious society). The doctors writing the drug off label? The US government for *encouraging* the use of a drug based mostly on cost? Genetech?--ha,no.
I'd say greedy Genetech has this bio-ethical situation pretty well locked up.
Though a compromise is in there somewhere and of course it comes down to the almighty dollar. Forget the wet AMD patients--they don't factor in. Many won't be able to read the results (or anything else) by the time the study is completed anyhow.
I would recommend working with a life and/or career coach. I worked with Gretchen Pritts, a veteran of the pharma industry herself, and she actually specializes in helping pharma reps either re-discover passion for their pharma job or find out what they really want to do with their lives. She's really motivating and inspiring. If you are really unhappy with your current situation, you should definitely do something to change it. Gretchen's website is http://www.thediscoverlifecoach.net
Patients will love this. Pharma is going to place a cap on the money they pay docs to pump their drugs,lol,lol.
October 23, 2008, 9:07 am
Another Drug Maker to Report Payments to Doctors
Posted by Jacob Goldstein
The pharma transparency bandwagon is filling up, as drug makers pile on to report their payments to physicians. Now GlaxoSmithKline has climbed aboard, the Financial Times reports .
Besides publicly reporting what the company pays docs (presumably for things like consulting and giving speeches), Glaxo will also cap payments at $150,000 per year.
“It’s appropriate that we have a limit on what we pay,” CEO Andrew Witty told the FT. “In the past, whatever has happened has happened, but in the future there will be strict adherence to these caps, which will be clearer to everybody.”
Part of what happened in the past was large payments to an Emory University psychiatrist who was also running a federally funded study — a potential conflict of interest recently disclosed as part of a congressional investigation.
And in Europe, the Dutch are looking into company payments to academics who sit on an advisory board that recently recommended a Glaxo vaccine.
Merck and Eli Lilly are among the companies that have already said they’ll make public at least some of their payments to doctors.
Transparency could soon be forced on the whole industry, willing or unwilling: The Physician Payment Sunshine Act, sponsored by an influential senator, Chuck Grassley, would require drug and device makers to regularly report their payments to doctors
Thats not bad, my family had to watch 3-4 of the cheesy ads during one 30 min newscast! What unclassy hucksters these marketing morons are.
Good thing you are a huckster selling drugs instead of being a car salesman huckster in todays market. Folks always get sick but do not always buy cars
.Good thing you are a huckster selling drugs instead of being a car salesman huckster in todays market. Folks always get sick but do not always buy cars
Yeah, but when folks get sick in hard times they put off buying drugs.
..Or they buy the generics, You can argue the science all you want on why your 50 dollar product is better than the 4 dollar generic but when a family can barely make ends meet, your 50 dollar copay is a tank of gas or groceries...Even I, who makes good money, am starting to rethink the generic thing if I need a medication...
It'll be interesting to see how overpriced brand name drugs will be affected during this recession...
It'll be interesting to see how overpriced brand name drugs will be affected during this recession...
Sleazy? why is it so horrible to discuss intimacy in America? are we so f'd up that we think sex is bad? If i told you i had a product that made you feel so good, relaxed and happy and it was free you would be banging my door down to get it, but sex! sex is bad!
did you see the latest out of a church somewher ein texas? the pastor said that sexless marriages are the doom of marriage and the culture in general, he adovcated 7 dys of sex amongst the married parishoners, some men need help and these drugs make them happy again, is that so bad?
European Union regulators accused drugmakers of costing consumers in 17 countries as much as $3.8 billion by using patent lawsuits and other alleged anti-competitive tactics to keep cheaper generic medicines off the market.
An investigation of several major drugmakers - including Pfizer, Glaxo and Sanofi Aventis - showed they blocked or stalled generics from entering the market to prevent losing revenue on their more profitable drugs, according to the European Commission. Regulators say pharma filed disputes, lawsuits and multiple patent applications for the same drug. In one case, 1,300 applications were involved.
Patent litigation lasted on average three years, and generic drugmaker won some 60 percent of the cases, but brand-name drugmakers also struck deals that limited how generics could be sold - and made payments of more than $250 million to their generic rivals as part of the arrangements (here is the EU preliminary report, an executive summary and various fact sheets - here, here, here and here.
The EU says the average delay for generics to go on sale was seven months. Regulators based the lost billions on a sample of meds that faced the loss of exclusivity from 2000 to 2007 in 17 countries. The savings could have been realized if generics had been approved for sale without delay. Only 28 new types of drugs were launched from 2000 to 2004, fewer than the 40 that launched from 1995 to 1999.
“These preliminary results show that market entry of generic companies and the development of new and more affordable medicines is sometimes blocked or delayed, at significant cost to healthcare systems, consumers and taxpayers,” EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
I use generic and there is No scentific difference only generic is $4.00 and Brande drug is $50.00.
This industry is total rip off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An investigation of several major drugmakers - including Pfizer, Glaxo and Sanofi Aventis - showed they blocked or stalled generics from entering the market to prevent losing revenue on their more profitable drugs, according to the European Commission. Regulators say pharma filed disputes, lawsuits and multiple patent applications for the same drug. In one case, 1,300 applications were involved.
Patent litigation lasted on average three years, and generic drugmaker won some 60 percent of the cases, but brand-name drugmakers also struck deals that limited how generics could be sold - and made payments of more than $250 million to their generic rivals as part of the arrangements (here is the EU preliminary report, an executive summary and various fact sheets - here, here, here and here.
The EU says the average delay for generics to go on sale was seven months. Regulators based the lost billions on a sample of meds that faced the loss of exclusivity from 2000 to 2007 in 17 countries. The savings could have been realized if generics had been approved for sale without delay. Only 28 new types of drugs were launched from 2000 to 2004, fewer than the 40 that launched from 1995 to 1999.
“These preliminary results show that market entry of generic companies and the development of new and more affordable medicines is sometimes blocked or delayed, at significant cost to healthcare systems, consumers and taxpayers,” EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
I use generic and there is No scentific difference only generic is $4.00 and Brande drug is $50.00.
This industry is total rip off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, you are a quick learner,lol.
"This industry is total rip off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"