Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
apothecary

Report exposes drug companies' lobbying expenses

Recommended Posts

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/28/2201999.htm

Drug companies spent more than $16 million on hospitality and travel costs for Australian doctors and nurses in just six months last year.

Anyone who has scanned a GP's room will know from the branded coffee mugs, pens and note pads, that drug companies are keen to market their wares.

But the sheer scale of the drug industry's generosity to Australia's doctors and medical professionals has now been made public.

For the first time, the pharmaceutical companies themselves have revealed just what they spend lobbying the Australian medical community.

The drug companies' peak body, Medicines Australia, is now publishing these figures, thanks to a new requirement by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

Consumer advocates say there is no doubt the pharmaceutical companies are trying to buy the opinions of doctors and they want the largesse to stop.

In the six months to last December, 42 of Australia's drug companies spent $16.4 million in travel, accommodation and hospitality.

Almost 400,000 health professionals received the hospitality at more than 14,000 separate events.

Medicines Australia chief executive Ian Chalmers says it is a lot of money, but it needs to be seen in context.

"There are 385,000 health care professionals who participated in medical education events during the six-month period that this report covers," he said.

"That is an enormous number of individuals and indicates the extent to which doctors and other health care professionals are active participants in continuing medical education."

Big spenders

Among the 14,000 so-called "educational events" were some individual big ticket items.

Roche Products, for instance, spent $415,000 last August on meals, drinks, accommodation and flights for around 300 health care professionals at a three-day hepatitis symposium held at Melbourne's Grand Hyatt Hotel.

Other companies spent well over $100,000 on individual functions and their critics, including Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn, argue these sorts of events do influence doctors.

"I think there's no doubt that marketing seeks to influence doctors' behaviour," he said.

"We think it's quite fair enough for them to talk to doctors, to give them information, but actually there are other systems, the national prescribing service for example, sends out people to talk to doctors to give them information. Now that's something that's totally independent.

"That's the kind of system we'd like to see, far more of that going on and perhaps far less of the educational function."

But Mr Chalmers rejects the suggestion that the drug companies are attempting to influence doctors.

"No, I think doctors are influenced by the knowledge that they gain about the capacity of medicines to deal with the challenges of disease," he said.

"That's the focus of these events. Doctors will make their own decisions about the most appropriate medicine for each patient and each condition they're confronting."

No naming, no shaming

While the report lists what money the drug companies have spent, it does not name the doctors who benefit.

But Mr Zinn does not believe that information has to be made public.

"We don't necessarily think so. There have been calls from some quarters that everyone should be named, but we don't think it's a question of individual doctors," he said.

"It's really, for us, the story of an industry buying influence."

Mr Chalmers shares that view, arguing it is up to the individual to question doctors about the drugs they are prescribing.

"I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to ask doctors about the availability of information, how they obtain the information and what are their views about relative treatment options," he said.

"At the end of the day the most important thing is the quality use of medicines."

All the drug companies which are members of Medicines Australia were required to publish the figures by the ACCC as part of the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct. It is a world first.

"This is globally unprecedented and it's a heightened level of transparency that our industry actually welcomes," Mr Chalmers said.

"We think it's an important opportunity for us to be able to show people what we do, how we go about providing training and education for doctors and why it is so important."

But not all drug companies are required to release the information about the money they are spending on doctors.

Companies which are not members of the peak body, and that includes many of the generic drug producers, do not have to publish the figures.

Mr Zinn says that is not good enough.

"We're only getting half the story and of course, as there's going to be a lot of growth in the generic medicine area, if you're going to have a system of disclosure, it has to involve everyone, not just those who happen to be members of the industry body," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no argument that the drug companies are trying to indoctrinate doctors to use their latest products, however i think the idea ov a publicly funded independent body keeping all doctors up to date on the hundreds ov new medications released each month, while highly desirable, is fairly unrealistic-- public spending on health is pretty stretched as it is.

If the drug companies want to spend money on educating/influencing/wining & dining doctors then let them. I'm confident that my doctor is intelligent enough not to be too easily influenced & will proscribe the most suitable medicine for his patients based on their needs & not who supplied his coffee mug.

Of course there's a whole other argument about whether we need 99% ov the new drugs pushed on us each year......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply view this as the same issue as corporate lobbying of politicians.

If it's education/support of overstretched/underprovided resources, then do it for that ideal and don't expect reciprocation (in the form of policy or sick patients).

If we cut our "defense" budget to the point where it actually only was defense, then neither doctors nor teachers nor probably politicians would require any money from any vested private sector interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×