ACCC ruling divides doctors
The 6minutes story story on new rules to make details of every drug company do attended by doctors public has attracted a divided response from readers.
Some of you are outraged the ACCC ruling will force companies to divulge the professional status of attendees, hospitality provided, cost and educational content on a public website.
One concern is about an invasion of privacy when practice or hospital details are published. “I absolutely object to my privacy being stomped on by the ACCC”, wrote Dr Mason Stevenson.
I see his point but suspect patients have better things to do than trawl the net for examples of largesse bestowed upon their doctor. On the other hand, such info will probably make sexy copy for the lay media who always relish a “greedy doctor” story.
Other correspondents are enraged the medical profession has been singled out while other professionals are lavishly entertained ad nauseum.
“In any other industry entertainment of clients is an accepted part of customer relations…. Get off our backs”, wrote Dr John Lutz.
Again, he’s right, and I sheepishly admit traveling as a journalist to Paris courtesy of a drug company and Africa courtesy of a travel company, a vast contrast to the meager offerings I’ve received as female part-time GP.
And for the record if I sacrifice a home-cooked meal with my family to attend an educational function at night, I expect a hot meal not a sandwich. Who has sandwiches for dinner?
What’s different between the medical and other professions, according to ethicists, is the concept of information asymmetry, where a “knowledgeable” doctor chooses a drug for a patient who depends on them for drug info - quite a different process than a patient making their own informed decision about which car to buy.
Another major objection to the new ruling is the argument that hospitality and gifts don’t influence prescribing behaviour, and on this one there’s quite good evidence – they do.
In fact, it appears that the more gifts a doctor receives, the more firm their belief that seeing drug reps doesn’t affect their prescribing.
As they say, drug companies aren’t stupid. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.
Some of you are outraged the ACCC ruling will force companies to divulge the professional status of attendees, hospitality provided, cost and educational content on a public website.
One concern is about an invasion of privacy when practice or hospital details are published. “I absolutely object to my privacy being stomped on by the ACCC”, wrote Dr Mason Stevenson.
I see his point but suspect patients have better things to do than trawl the net for examples of largesse bestowed upon their doctor. On the other hand, such info will probably make sexy copy for the lay media who always relish a “greedy doctor” story.
Other correspondents are enraged the medical profession has been singled out while other professionals are lavishly entertained ad nauseum.
“In any other industry entertainment of clients is an accepted part of customer relations…. Get off our backs”, wrote Dr John Lutz.
Again, he’s right, and I sheepishly admit traveling as a journalist to Paris courtesy of a drug company and Africa courtesy of a travel company, a vast contrast to the meager offerings I’ve received as female part-time GP.
And for the record if I sacrifice a home-cooked meal with my family to attend an educational function at night, I expect a hot meal not a sandwich. Who has sandwiches for dinner?
What’s different between the medical and other professions, according to ethicists, is the concept of information asymmetry, where a “knowledgeable” doctor chooses a drug for a patient who depends on them for drug info - quite a different process than a patient making their own informed decision about which car to buy.
Another major objection to the new ruling is the argument that hospitality and gifts don’t influence prescribing behaviour, and on this one there’s quite good evidence – they do.
In fact, it appears that the more gifts a doctor receives, the more firm their belief that seeing drug reps doesn’t affect their prescribing.
As they say, drug companies aren’t stupid. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.
Labels: drug company hospitality
posted by ozdocblog at 12:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home