What do drug dealers and drug reps have in common?

Via ProPublica’s Charles Ornstein, I learned of a disturbing decision from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In an insane ruling, two of judges determined that a drug rep promoting “off-label” uses for a drug was exercising his freedom of speech. Let’s stroll to the back of a typical doctor’s office to see how this plays out.

Of all the ways pharmaceutical companies market drugs, two are especially distasteful (i.e. annoying, immoral, and dangerous). The first is direct-to-consumer advertising (“Having chest pain? Take Brand A aspirin! Oh, and call 911!) The other is the practice of drug company marketers (drug reps) visiting doctors’ offices.

In both cases, people whose job it is to sell a product are doing their best to get patients asking for a drug and doctors prescribing it. The drug companies argue that they are providing a necessary service: educating doctors about new drugs, the obvious fallacy being that their incentive isn’t to “educate” but to inculcate. One of the ways this practice has been regulated historically is by telling drug reps they can only promote the drug for uses approved by the FDA.

So, for example, if NewSuperDrug has been shown to improve hair growth, and that’s what the FDA has approved it for, a drug rep cannot (except perhaps in the Second Circuit) also say, “By the way, it’s also great for blood pressure. Give it a try.”

Here’s where it gets sticky. It may be true that the drug is good for blood pressure. A doctor may choose to prescribe it for that. But when it comes to marketing, the manufacturers have to stick to what they proved to the FDA (except perhaps in the Second Circuit).

This is bad—really bad. First of all, doctors shouldn’t be getting their information from drug reps. It’s hard enough parsing through the literature, with its publication biases, decline effect, and drug company shenanigans—hard, but not impossible. What’s not so hard is finding appropriate non-corporate-sponsored Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits. Conferences, websites, medical associations all give docs access to information, information less biased than that from the people who stand to benefit from your prescribing habits.

Drug reps are, by reputation, young, attractive, and sociable. They also tend to want to feed you. Many medical centers, especially the ones that participate in medical education, have banned drug reps. But doctors offices often let them in. (Full disclosure: we let them in, but don’t let them bring lunches. Certain drugs, like ALL asthma drugs, aren’t available as generics, and we need the samples.)

It’s hard for a doc like me to see how free speech enters into limiting what these folks can say. The obvious analogies (theater, fire, etc.) aren’t even needed. We regulate advertisers all the time, for example, prosecuting certain types of deception. Bait-and-switch advertising isn’t OK and we don’t see limiting it as an onerous imposition on free speech.

Drugs are pretty damned complicated and important. Telling drug companies they can’t promote their drugs except for the uses they managed to get approved is actually a good thing. Allowing them to say whatever they want gives them license to increase their sales by convincing busy doctors to prescribe for off-label uses that may or may not be OK. Yes, docs like me are supposed to know the difference, but studies have clearly shown that we are influenced by drug reps, whether we think so or not.

My advice: docs shouldn’t talk to drug reps. Cut of their access, and the companies will have to find other ways to promote their products. But since we can’t and probably shouldn’t prevent drug companies from marketing their products to doctors, we have to make it clear that this isn’t a free speech issue, but a safety and public health issue.

My guess would be that the current Supreme Court, where this case may end up, will think it’s just fine for drug reps to say whatever they want, so it’s time for doctors to stop listening.

(By the way, the answer to the question posed in the title of this post: they can both say whatever they want about their product, at least in the Second Circuit.)


  1. What’s next, letting the cigarette companies go back to claiming that smoking is good for your cough?

  2. JustaTech

     /  December 4, 2012

    I guess the only question I have would be: how should doctors (who clearly have tons of free time on their hands *sarc*) find out about new drugs/treatments/devices? No one has the time to keep up to date on all the literature, esp. if you’re not in a super-specific field but in general practice, where you need to know about ashma, diabetes, heart disease, antibiotics, etc. Some kind of monthly/quarterly publication by a semi-autonomous group, like the AMA?

    (Disclosure: I work for a biotech with reps.)

  3. Yeah, what we have is suboptimal. I don’t object to pharma sponsored CME prima facie, but think there should be a chinese wall of sorts, if that’s even possible.

    I know a lot of people make a living detailing drugs, and many of them are good, solid markerters and have no desire to give out incorrect information. A court case like this though makes it even more tempting than it already is to expand the role from dispensing FDA approved information to saying whatever you want.

    Many companies have policies against marketing off-label use. But what about the guy stuck with the bad set of practices and falling behind on targets, etc.

  4. SurgPA

     /  December 4, 2012

    @Justatech – The Prescribers’ Letter is a decent resource for the need you describe. Free of pharma bias, decent updates.

    @Pal – 3-4 years ago Vermont Public Radio broadcast a memoir from a pharma rep who outlined the techniques he was taught to influence physicians as well as the degree of sophistication and coordination the industry uses to influence (free meals and trinkets are just the beginning.) While I’m sure there are reps with good intentions, his description of the marketing machinery of big pharma was pretty chilling. I’ve tried to find a transcript without any luck. I’d be curious if this rings a bell with any of your readers.

  5. This is a very immature idea, but, if you ever meet with a drug rep, do you ever intentionally make the encounter awkward? Or is this a completely immature idea? I imagine it could be a fun way to “stick it” to the drug companies.

    • Yeah, that just punishes the working stiff. It’s the whole system that needs reform.

  6. How hard is it to simply ask the drug rep to leave your office? Or are they too young, attractive, and sociable to resist? – Some average guy who is disgusted by the drug companies and their reps

  7. Certain drugs, like ALL asthma drugs, aren’t available as generics….

    And the asthmatics are jolly well peeved about that.

  1. Hey, Mr. Tambourine Man | Side Effects May Include…
  2. Links 12/8/12 | Mike the Mad Biologist
  3. Court says Freedom of Speech applies to Big Pharma Sales Reps
%d bloggers like this: