Healthy Skepticism Library item: 16190

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Roner L.
What’s up doc?
Eyeforpharma.com 2009 Aug 4
http://old.eyeforpharma.com/blogs/lisa-roner/what%E2%80%99s-doc

Full text:

A panel discussion of practicing physicians at eyeforpharma’s recent Sales Force Effectiveness USA 2009 conference in Princeton offered some interesting insight about what clinicians really think about sales reps and how they might best serve their professional and patient needs. And in many respects it wasn’t what many of us expected or what we’ve been led to believe might be true.

The panel, moderated by Hank Parish, vice president of Doctor Directory, a virtual contract sales organization, featured five physicians from the New Jersey area, from urgent care doctors and general practitioners to specialty physicians. The panel also ranged from fairly young doctors to those who’d been in practice for decades. So, while it was by no means a scientific sampling, it offered a seemingly representative one of those actually practicing in the trenches.

Parish quizzed the participants on everything from whether they are willingly to see pharma reps in their clinics to their use of electronic media for receiving pharmaceutical information. First, we were surprised at how willing – even eager – most of the panelists were to interacting with reps. Although some said they preferred to schedule time with reps rather than be dropped in on, all said they made time for rep visits and welcomed the information that reps had to share with them. In fact, they said the rep’s role may be more important today than ever, given the volume of information doctors must keep up with in their practices.

Misrepresented?

When asked why their attitudes toward reps and their usefulness seemed to differ from so much from what we hear from professional medical associations today, one participant explained that most of the boards that state positions on such matters are populated by academic MDs, whose perspectives and available time for researching new information on prescription drugs is different than that of practicing clinicians.

It was interesting to hear that the organizations that claim to speak for physicians perhaps don’t really represent the views of those truly serving patients. On a surprisingly large number of issues from access to prescribing data and rep influences on prescribing to the value of e-tools and the effect of mirrored sales forces, these practicing physicians differed greatly in their opinions from what has been touted to be the take on pharma offered by medical associations claiming to represent physicians.

These physicians went so far as to say they preferred face-to-face interactions with reps over e-details and pre-scripted tablet PC presentations. They emphatically said they had no objections to their prescribing data being utilized for analysis by pharmas and they stressed the importance of reps in keeping them educated and up-to-date on the latest prescription drug information and general medical studies and breakthroughs.

They almost unanimously said that the personality of a rep matters greatly – and that they prefer to interact with someone who’s pleasant, fun and knowledgeable. They also indicated they appreciate a personal aspect to the relationship.

Room for improvement

One doctor on the panel suggested that reps should be more knowledgeable about competitor’s products and that they should have more flexibility to deviate from pre-determined detail scripts and plans in order to suit individual doctor’s needs and preferences. Another said they should be brief and respectful of doctors’ busy schedules and their ability to absorb information in the midst of an already busy day.

Leave-behind literature, particularly on side effects, dosing and patient education aids, are particularly appreciated by this group of doctors. But they stressed the importance of keeping the materials short and concise with clear summaries of key facts, new indications and formulary status clearly highlighted.

In short, although they had some suggestions for improvement, this was not a group that appeared to want to distance itself from pharma or its reps. In fact, it was quite the opposite . These doctors saw value in what pharma and its reps have to offer. Funny that’s not what we hear in the media or from the political lobby. Have we been listening to the wrong “doctors?”