One practice’s experiment in refusing detail rep visits

,; ,

Original Research

One practice’s experiment in refusing detail rep visits

J Fam Pract. 2011 August;60(8):E1-E6

By

Gabriel Andeen

David V. Evans, MD

Physicians and staff discovered that the benefits of refusing visits from pharmaceutical representatives outweighed the perks they had grown accustomed to.

PDF Download

References

1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, et al. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742-1750.

2. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283:373-380.

3. Chew LD, O’Young TS, Hazlet TK, et al. A physician survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians’ behavior. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:478-483.

4. Symm B, Averitt M, Forjuoh SN, et al. Effects of using free sample medications on the prescribing practices of family physicians. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19:443-449.

5. Cutrona SL, Woolhandler S, Lasser KE, et al. Characteristics of recipients of free prescription drug samples: a nationally representative analysis. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:284-2896.

6. Dill JL, Generali JA. Medication sample labeling practices. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:2087-2090.

7. Backer EL, Lebsack JA, Van Tonder RJ, et al. The value of pharmaceutical representative visits and medication samples in community-based family practices. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:811-816.

8. Hayes TM, Allery LA, Harding KG, et al. Continuing education for general practice and the role of the pharmaceutical industry. Br J Gen Pract. 1990;40:510-512.

9. McKinney WP, Schiedermayer DL, Lurie N, et al. Attitudes of internal medicine faculty and residents toward professional interaction with pharmaceutical sales representatives. JAMA. 1990;264:1693-1697.

10. National Physicians Alliance Available at: http://npalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/IssueBrief-Integrity-HighRes.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2011.

11. No Free Lunch About us. Available at: http://www.nofreelunch.org. Accessed July 14, 2011.

12. American Medical Student Association PharmFree. Best practice policies. Available at:http://www.pharmfree.org/campaign. Accessed July 14, 2011.

13. Blake RL, Jr, Early EK. Patients’ attitudes about gifts to physicians from pharmaceutical companies. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1995;8::457-464.

14. Brett AS, Burr W, Moloo J. Are gifts from pharmaceutical companies ethically problematic? A survey of physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2213-2218.

15. Brody H. The company we keep: why physicians should refuse to see pharmaceutical representatives. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:82-85.

16. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA. 2002;287:612-617.

17. Eaton L. Readers want transparency in link between doctors and drug firms. BMJ. 2003;326-1352.

18. Blumenthal D. Doctors and drug companies. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1885-1890.

19. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, et al. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:101-106.

20. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Financial conflicts of interest in physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1891-1900.

21. Saul S. Gimme an Rx! Cheerleaders pep up drug sales. The New York Times. November 28, 2005. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/business/28cheer.html. Accessed July 17, 2010.

22. Saul S. Drug makers pay for lunch as they pitch. The New York Times. July 28, 2006. Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/business/28lunch.html. Accessed July 17, 2010.

23. Saul S. Doctors object to gathering of drug data. The New York Times. May 4, 2006. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/business/04prescribe.html. Accessed July 17, 2010.

24. Zuger A. fever pitch: getting doctors to prescribe is big business. The New York Times. January 11, 1999. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/11/us/fever-pitch-getting-doctors-to-prescribe-is-big-business.html. Accessed July 17, 2010.

25. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295:429-433.

26. Association of American Medical Colleges. Industry Funding of Medical Education: Report of a AAMC Task Force. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2008.

27. Campbell EG, Regan S, Gruen RL, et al. Professionalism in medicine: results of a national survey of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:795-802.

28. Westfall JM, McCabe J, Nicholas RA. Personal use of drug samples by physicians and office staff. JAMA. 1997;278:141-143.

29. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290:252-255.

30. Meier B, Saul S. Marketing of Vioxx: how Merck played game of catch-up. The New York Times. February 11, 2005. Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/business/11merck.html. Accessed July 17, 2010.

31. Seitz K. Do patients believe physicians are influenced by all those “Drug Pens”. Presented at 36th Annual Meeting of the North America Primary Care Research Group. November 15-18, 2008; Puerto Rico.

Abstract

Purpose The physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship has come under increasing scrutiny. Little guidance exists concerning how smaller practices should manage this relationship. In 2006, Madras Medical Group, a small family practice in rural Oregon, implemented a policy prohibiting visits from representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and the acceptance of drug samples. This qualitative study documents the attitudes of clinic personnel in response to this policy.

Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted using standardized questions related to 4 areas of policy perception: verification of policy decision, impact on clinic operations, influence of pharmaceutical industry, and lessons to share. Common themes were identified.

Results Three physicians and 3 nurses participated in the study. There was consensus on the existence and effectiveness of the clinic policy. Key themes identified from both groups of interviewees included the perception of enhanced clinic operation after eliminating interruptions from pharmaceutical representatives, positive response from the public, and reduced diversion of samples for personal use. Clinicians interviewed agreed that samples were of questionable benefit, that information obtained from industry representatives was incomplete or of questionable veracity or objectivity, and that it was helpful to substitute other drug information sources and clinic-sponsored lunches for past industry offerings.

Conclusion In this case study, a policy prohibiting pharmaceutical representatives from a small family practice was well accepted and a source of pride among physicians and nurses. Other clinics wishing to enact a similar policy may wish to supplement their efforts by proactively using other sources of drug information.

A 2004 national survey of more than 3100 American physicians in 6 specialties reported that 94% had some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, mostly involving the receipt of food in the workplace (83%) or free drug samples (78%).¹ Family physicians met with industry representatives more frequently, on average 16 times per month, than other specialties.¹ But at what expense?

Physician interaction with the pharmaceutical industry and acceptance of drug samples has been shown to increase prescription costs and nonevidence-based prescribing.^2-4 Furthermore, evidence suggests that samples are not distributed to the neediest of patients,⁵ and that sampled medicines may be distributed with inadequate labeling, instruction, or discussion of adverse effects.^6,7

Evidence suggests doctors receive little value from detailing visits.^8,9 Physician organizations, including the National Physicians Alliance,¹⁰ No Free Lunch,¹¹ and the American Medical Student Association,¹² have explicit policies refusing gifts from drug companies and encourage members to examine the ethical implications of interactions with drug detailers. However, little guidance or evidence exists concerning the development of individual clinic policies regarding access of pharmaceutical representatives, the use of drug samples, or how such policies might affect prescribing practices of physicians.

Concerned about the operational impact of increased detailer visits on their private practice, the 5 physicians affiliated with Madras Medical Group decided by consensus to discontinue seeing pharmaceutical representatives and accepting and distributing drug samples. At the same time, they instituted scheduled group educational meetings to review nonindustry-supported, objective pharmaceutical resources. They also participated in a qualitative study to gain insight into the impact of this policy change on physician and nurse attitudes toward the practice of pharmaceutical detailing.

Methods

The study team, which included academic researchers unaffiliated with Madras Medical Group, used semistructured interviews with clinicians and key staff members at the rural family practice office. After a detailed literature review, the team created a set of 5 open-ended questions to obtain physician and nurse perceptions in 4 areas:

verification of the decision process and policy change banning pharmaceutical representatives and drug samples
impact of the policy on patients, physicians, nursing staff, and clinic operations
perceived influence of pharmaceutical representatives and drug samples on the practice
lessons learned to share with other family medicine practices contemplating implementation of a policy excluding pharmaceutical representatives and drug samples.

On a single day about 2 years after the policy change, an out-of-town neutral interviewer (GA) unaffiliated with the practice interviewed physicians and nurses. The interviewer asked the predetermined questions of each study participant and was free to ask related questions depending on the answers. The team taped the interviews and had them transcribed. Two study investigators and a senior research associate, none of whom were associated with the practice, read each transcript and independently identified common themes, concordance, theme saturation, and unique perspectives. The study was approved by the Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Review Board.

Results

Six clinic personnel participated in the interviews: 3 family physicians with an average of 8 years of practice, and 3 nurses with an average of 20 years of service. (The other 2 practice physicians were not in the office on the day interviews were conducted.) The interviewees agreed that the practice was free of pharmaceutical representatives, sample medicines, and marketing paraphernalia (pens, note pads, etc.). Each interviewee understood and supported the policy.