Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
Guest
Your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum argument may be seem to be clever but it masks the underlying logic that is being used to decimate all pharma reps, not just Gilenya. Since now, due to access and other issues, there is almost no correlation between sales reps and total sales, pharma is cutting reps. They have, industry wide, now slashed 40% with no effect on sales and with no end in site.
Most of the incentives NOT to cut even more is institutional; what do sales leadership and marketing do if there aren't many sale reps? What is the sales strategy if there aren't many or any sales reps?
I repeat, sales rep numbers have been cut in the US industry wide by 40% over the last 4 years and overall sales are up.
And it's not just the direct costs of reps that pharma feels. Employing reps has risks. With the new Sunshine Laws and all the lawsuits Reps pose a big risk.
No, pharma will not get rid of all Reps but it ain't stopping at a 40% reduction.
BINGO - Too much risk when you can cut the risk and have the same results. Why do you think the responsibilities have moved from the reps plate to a nurse/MSL plate? Just too risky (and expensive) to allow reps to have responsibilities that put the company at risk. It is over people. PC to MS to Onc. The days are numbered and that means you have a 50% chance of being unemployed in 3 years or less.