New PhRMA Survey of Physicians: Are Sales Reps as "Useful" as PhRMA Wants Us to Believe?

"New Survey Emphasizes Value of Biopharmaceutical Company Engagement With Healthcare Providers" is the main point PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association - the industry trade association) emphasized in its press release (here) regarding a survey of physicians it sponsored. PhRMA also pointed out that nearly 9 out of 10 physicians considered company-sponsored peer education programs to be "up-to-date, useful and reliable."

That's good news for pharmaceutical marketers who spent $24 billion between October 2009 and September 2010 on physician-targeted promotional spending, not including nearly $1 billion on continuing medical education (more data on promotional spending will appear in a Pharma Marketing News article to be published later today). It's good news because the survey justifies devoting the bulk of that promotional spend to support physician detailing by sales reps.

Of course, it's always educational to go beyond the PR and the trade publication stories that merely rephrase the PR (eg, this story) to learn something new, even some things the drug industry may not want you to learn.

For instance, look at this survey result that PhRMA doesn't mention:

What I notice is that only 22% of physicians surveyed said that patient access to the care they need is "working best." There is some survey results interpretation issues here, but it seems that access to care may be a problem in the US according to physicians. And without access to care, everything else -- including the value of medicines, the quality of care in general, and the value of pharmaceutical sales reps -- means nothing. Of course, "access to care" is probably a physician buzz-phrase related to the shortcomings of "managed care" and even "Obamacare."

The very first sentence in PhRMA's press release emphasizes that "Nearly eight out of 10 physicians view pharmaceutical research companies and their sales representatives as useful sources of information on prescription medicines." What PhRMA does NOT say, however, is more telling. Take a look at this survey result:

What I notice is 38% of physicians find Web-based sources of medication information "very useful" versus 26% who find sales reps very useful for that information. Hmmm... either sales reps are not doing their job as well as the Web or maybe they are doing their jobs TOO well -- ie, providing company-sanctioned and biased information rather than information physicians think is useful. Or you could look it another way -- maybe docs are finding a lot more useful "off-label" information on the Web (and CME, which ranks #1?) -- information they technically cannot get from sales reps.

As with any survey, it is difficult to interpret the results of this survey, which allows for all sorts of spins. You can find the entire survey results attached to this Pharma Marketing Forums post.

Adverse Event Reporting -- Pharma Puts Profits Before Patients. A Missed Opportunity

By now you should have heard that the Supreme Court recently ruled that investors can sue pharmaceutical companies for failing to disclose reports of adverse events even if the evidence is not "statistically significant" (see "Supreme Court Allows Investors to Sue Pharmacos Over AE Reporting Lapses").

In a brief to the court, PhRMA (the US pharmaceutical trade association) said "A collection of adverse event reports that is not statistically significant does not permit a reasonable inference that a particular medicine actually caused the reported adverse event" (the brief is attached to the post cited above).

But what is "statistically significant?" According to PhRMA, "The statistical significance standard requires disclosure only once a correlation between an adverse event and the subject product can be reasonably inferred to be causal. It is only at that point that a manufacturer or regulatory body might react to adverse events, that a medicine’s sales would be threatened, and that a rational investor might consider this information in making investment decisions."

"Writing for the unanimous court," NPR reports, "Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that medical researchers and the FDA often reach initial conclusions based on evidence that is not statistically significant."

"The decision will make compliance with the securities laws more difficult" for corporations, said James Martin, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of lawyers who represent corporations.

The decision will also make it more difficult for pharma marketers to engage in the social media realm, where the adverse event boogey man has often been cited as an excuse for not engaging consumers about product issues.

When the adverse event reporting issue comes up during industry conferences such as this week's CBI's iPharmaConnect, there are always pharma people in the audience who wish their companies would embrace adverse event communication with consumers/patients as a way of supporting the users of their products. During my panel discussion -- "Utilization of Social Media -- How Far Is Too Far" -- one pharma employee in the audience had this to say:

"I think as an industry that we should really turn this [social media] adverse reporting [issue] on its head and look on it as an INCREDIBLE opportunity to really engage with the ultimate end user who is really the most important person [my emphasis, I think] and use it as an opportunity to find out WAY more than we ever do about how [our products] really affect their lives. ...I think this [pharma aversion to dealing head-on with AER in social media] is EXACTLY why people don't like the pharma industry -- because we're always doing things that are SO secret -- 'Oh, we can't talk about that.' -- it's ridiculous! We save people's lives and we should be ENCOURAGING [patients] to tell us what's going on and how these medicines are affecting their lives. I just think it's a missed opportunity."

Her statements were followed by immediate, spontaneous applause!

We have been told by our pharma marketing colleagues that the fear of lawsuits initiated by patients have prevented them from discussing adverse events in open forums. But it appears that the lawsuits pharma fears the most are NOT from disgruntled patients, but from disgruntled INVESTORS! That fear runs all the way up to the top of the organization; ie, the CEO, who is rewarded based upon stock price performance, not how well the company services patients.

Long gone are the days when a pharma CEO can truthfully say:

"We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they will never fail to appear. The better we have remembered that, the larger they have been." -- George Merck - Founder of Merck & Co Inc.

Taro Pharmaceutical's "Bag O' Glass" Moment

I don't know who's "stupider" -- Taro Pharmaceutical, which published an OVIDE lotion branded comic book for kids without including warnings or the FDA, which sent the company a notice of violation letter because it did not include warnings such as "OVIDE Lotion is flammable?!"

Holy cow! Flammable?! Even with the warning, Taro should never promote this product in a  comic book aimed at kids!

It sort if reminds me of the Saturday Night Live "Bag O' Glass" skit featuring toy manufacturer Irwin Mainway, played byDan Aykroyd and Consumer Reporter played by Candice Bergen.

Consumer Reporter: So, you don't feel that this product is dangerous?

Irwin Mainway: No! Look, we put a label on every bag that says, "Kid! Be careful - broken glass!" I mean, we sell a lot of products in the "Bag O'" line.. like Bag O' Glass, Bag O' Nails, Bag O' Bugs, Bag O' Vipers, Bag O' Sulfuric Acid. They're decent toys, you know what I mean?

See the video of the skit on Hulu here.

Hat Tip to this Pharmalot story where you can read more about this.

Astellas Scientist Shows How to Light Ice on Fire!

This is Robert Kernstock, Principal Scientist at Astellas Pharma US. I was alerted to meet Robert and "learn why he LOVES science & who inspired him" by @AstellasUS, the company's Twitter account.

I immediately recognized Robert from a video he made that teaches kids how to light ice on fire. That video was the highlight of a conference I attended last year. That's Robert and his fiery ice on the left. I embedded the video below.

The Astellas YouTube channel (here) showcases several of its scientists as part of the company's Science WoRx (get it? ie, "Rx" for prescription) project, which is a local mentoring program and online resource network for science teachers.

I think this is an interesting program because it shows us some of the real people who work in the pharmaceutical industry and how they got there. Robert became interested in chemistry because his father was a chemist and worked for Dow Chemical and he admired his chemistry teacher in school.

[Personal aside: I recall that Dow Chemical produced deadly napalm and agent orange during the Vietnam War in the 60s and was responsible for the 1984 Bhopal (India) disaster, one of the world's worst industrial catastrophe due to a leak of methyl isocyanate. Obviously Dow Chemical also produces some great products that make life easier. In the balance of things, however, I'd much rather be like Robert and work for Astellas than like his father who worked at Dow. Robert says he had a "particular passion" which is "to help people. I wanted to cure diseases," said Robert (see his interview here).]

Astellas says "We encourage you to leave comments here. However, we will review all comments and will remove any that are inappropriate or offensive. Please understand that comments posted to this channel do not necessarily represent the opinions of Astellas Pharma US, Inc."

I guess Astellas has not received any comments or it finds all comments that were submitted -- I think I submitted one a while back -- inappropriate or offensive because I can't find any comments at all. That's a shame because it would be neat to have some kind of conversation with scientists like Robert or at least send them comments to say how much we enjoyed seeing ice on fire!

P.S. Astellas says "We understand that the future of innovation lies in our children and that a child’s interest in science is sparked in the classroom," says Astellas. "We also recognize that America’s science teachers are key in igniting this spark and that it’s their commitment that compels a child’s desire to pursue their interest further. In fact, many of our own employees attribute their passion for science to dedicated science educators like you."

It's too bad that state governments currently under Republican rule like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are drastically cutting funds to education and undermining the teachers that Astellas and other pharmaceutical companies depend upon to get future scientists on their payrolls. I think the drug industry needs to step forward FINANCIALLY to fill some of the void being created by draconian budget cuts. That's my opinion at least.



Whoah -- this ice is on fire! Learn how this "cool" reaction works with Science Pro Robert. Kids of all ages will get a kick out of this, but adult supervision is definitely required in this experiment! Please remember to wear all Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Incorporate this flashy experiment into your next class by requesting a companion lesson plan from science.worx@us.astellas.com!

Utilization of Social Media - How Far Is Too Far?

You probably have gone too far with social media if your campaign has been lambasted here on Pharma Marketing Blog as in this case.

Maybe you've gone too far if you received a letter from the FDA as in this case.

Or maybe you haven't gone anywhere at all with social media!

But seriously, how far can pharma marketers go with social media?

That's a question I will ask panel members and the audience at next Monday morning's iPharmaConnect conference in Philadelphia (see agenda). Other questions/topics to be addressed include:

• Can pharma marketers effectively use social media without crossing regulatory lines that have yet to be drawn in the sand?
• What are regulatory affairs and legal people within pharma companies concerned about when their marketing people seek to do branded marketing via social media?
• How can pharma marketers more effectively leverage digital tools to improve the connection with their audience?

Glenn Byrd, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs at MedImmune, will be a member of that panel. Unfortunately, Cynthia North, Customer Marketing Director at Bayer Healthcare, also was scheduled to be on the panel, but she won't be able to make it due to a business conflict.

I agreed to help the conference organizers look for a replacement -- preferably someone working inside a pharmaceutical company on the commercial (ie, marketing) side. If you are interested, contact Dan Elliman, Program Manager, The Center for Business Intelligence, 339-298-2153, Or contact me.

Disclosure: My newsletter -- Pharma Marketing News -- is a Media Partner for this conference. I am not getting paid to moderate this panel, although I will stick around for the free lunch!