Comments for Pharma Reform http://www.pharmareform.com Transforming Pharmaceutical Companies in an era of Healthcare Reform Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:57:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on How to Stop “Off-Label” Marketing and Sales of Prescription Drugs by Kimberly http://www.pharmareform.com/2012/02/01/how-to-stop-off-label-marketing-and-sales-of-prescription-drugs/comment-page-1/#comment-1592 Kimberly Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:57:38 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1330#comment-1592 That makes perfect sense. Well thought out and stated. Thank you! That makes perfect sense. Well thought out and stated. Thank you!

]]> Comment on How to Stop “Off-Label” Marketing and Sales of Prescription Drugs by Mike Wokasch http://www.pharmareform.com/2012/02/01/how-to-stop-off-label-marketing-and-sales-of-prescription-drugs/comment-page-1/#comment-1590 Mike Wokasch Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:44:58 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1330#comment-1590 Kimberly, Thanks for the good question. I don't believe this has anything to do with stunting innovation. In no way is physician prescribing inhibited or limited in this scenario. I am merely proposing that physicians, patients, and payers assume responsibility and accountability for their choice to prescribe, use, or pay for an unapproved use. I feel this is fair and appropriate. It has been too financially rewarding, incentivized and encouraged by reimbursement, to keep Pharma Companies from engaging in "off-label" promotion. As I state, that doesn't make it right and Pharma Companies should not be promoting their products for unapproved uses. At the same time, it has been too easy for the government and patients to use "off-label" promotion as the basis for litigating to multimillion dollar awards and settlements despite the fact that three other entities (physician, patient, and payer) all made choices to use a product for the unapproved indication. It's almost as if Pharma companies are being blamed for forcing physicians to prescribe, forcing patients to take to the drugs, and forcing payers to reimburse for the unapproved use. Although Pharma Companies benefit from "off-label" use, they have no capacity to prescribe, to make patients take drugs, or to approve payer reimbursement. mike@pharmareform.com Kimberly,
Thanks for the good question. I don’t believe this has anything to do with stunting innovation. In no way is physician prescribing inhibited or limited in this scenario. I am merely proposing that physicians, patients, and payers assume responsibility and accountability for their choice to prescribe, use, or pay for an unapproved use. I feel this is fair and appropriate. It has been too financially rewarding, incentivized and encouraged by reimbursement, to keep Pharma Companies from engaging in “off-label” promotion. As I state, that doesn’t make it right and Pharma Companies should not be promoting their products for unapproved uses. At the same time, it has been too easy for the government and patients to use “off-label” promotion as the basis for litigating to multimillion dollar awards and settlements despite the fact that three other entities (physician, patient, and payer) all made choices to use a product for the unapproved indication. It’s almost as if Pharma companies are being blamed for forcing physicians to prescribe, forcing patients to take to the drugs, and forcing payers to reimburse for the unapproved use. Although Pharma Companies benefit from “off-label” use, they have no capacity to prescribe, to make patients take drugs, or to approve payer reimbursement. mike@pharmareform.com

]]> Comment on How to Stop “Off-Label” Marketing and Sales of Prescription Drugs by Kimberly http://www.pharmareform.com/2012/02/01/how-to-stop-off-label-marketing-and-sales-of-prescription-drugs/comment-page-1/#comment-1589 Kimberly Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:58:53 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1330#comment-1589 This would be very effective in stopping off-label promotion. The portion that has to do with promotion should happen tomorrow. I am, however, concerned that by restricting the ability of physicians to prescribe drugs as they see fit we could stunt innovation. What do you think? This would be very effective in stopping off-label promotion. The portion that has to do with promotion should happen tomorrow. I am, however, concerned that by restricting the ability of physicians to prescribe drugs as they see fit we could stunt innovation. What do you think?

]]> Comment on Let Pfizer Compete in the Generic Market with Lipitor® by Pauline http://www.pharmareform.com/2012/01/05/let-pfizer-compete-in-the-generic-market-with-lipitor/comment-page-1/#comment-1561 Pauline Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:47:36 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1316#comment-1561 Surely it can only be a good thing for customers and Pfizer if they now compete on price once generic alternatives to Lipitor are available. They also have the benefit of millions of potentially loyal customers. Surely it can only be a good thing for customers and Pfizer if they now compete on price once generic alternatives to Lipitor are available. They also have the benefit of millions of potentially loyal customers.

]]> Comment on What can FDA really do about drug shortages? by Mike Wokasch http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/11/02/what-can-fda-really-do-about-drug-shortages/comment-page-1/#comment-1421 Mike Wokasch Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:43:50 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1273#comment-1421 Ken, Thank you for your comment. You raise two important issues. One is an appreciation for the expense of maintaining and fixing a prescription drug manufacturing process. The second is whether or not the government should financially subsidize the fix when critical medicines are involved. Keep in mind that many of these products are generic drugs and generic drug companies run on very thin profit margins. Maintaining the facility, process, and quality system requirements to manufacture prescription drugs to cGMP compliant standards is expensive, even for generic drugs and especially for sterile injectable products. Fixing manufacturing or quality problems, even for easy-to-manufacture products, is not a simple or inexpensive process. Diagnosing the problem, determining a fix, and then putting in place a solution followed by validation (practice runs to get it right and prove it works consistently, run after run) all take expertise, money, and time. This can be further compromised by older facilities and outdated equipment or machinery. I’m sure many of the products on the shortage list also probably have complex processes (not easily or inexpensive to fix) for making either the active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or the final finished product. Whether the government should help pay for these fixes to maintain a supply of critical medicines is more a political, philosophical issue. I personally see this as a market issue. If the market feels they are critical medicines and patients need them, the market and patients should be willing to pay a price that better represents their value. mike@pharmareform.com Ken,
Thank you for your comment. You raise two important issues. One is an appreciation for the expense of maintaining and fixing a prescription drug manufacturing process. The second is whether or not the government should financially subsidize the fix when critical medicines are involved.

Keep in mind that many of these products are generic drugs and generic drug companies run on very thin profit margins. Maintaining the facility, process, and quality system requirements to manufacture prescription drugs to cGMP compliant standards is expensive, even for generic drugs and especially for sterile injectable products. Fixing manufacturing or quality problems, even for easy-to-manufacture products, is not a simple or inexpensive process. Diagnosing the problem, determining a fix, and then putting in place a solution followed by validation (practice runs to get it right and prove it works consistently, run after run) all take expertise, money, and time. This can be further compromised by older facilities and outdated equipment or machinery. I’m sure many of the products on the shortage list also probably have complex processes (not easily or inexpensive to fix) for making either the active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or the final finished product.

Whether the government should help pay for these fixes to maintain a supply of critical medicines is more a political, philosophical issue. I personally see this as a market issue. If the market feels they are critical medicines and patients need them, the market and patients should be willing to pay a price that better represents their value. mike@pharmareform.com

]]> Comment on What can FDA really do about drug shortages? by ken http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/11/02/what-can-fda-really-do-about-drug-shortages/comment-page-1/#comment-1418 ken Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:52:49 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1273#comment-1418 Very interesting post. But why couldn't the FDA work with manufacturers to address regulatory concerns and even work with potential suppliers (essentially in an "extension agent" role) to raise quality levels, without this necessarily increasing prices? If having a stable supply of high quality drugs is a public good that the market alone is not providing, which is the clear take-away from this posting, then it makes sense for the government to step in and help supply the public good. I realize that may be infeasible, politically, in an era where everyone is obsessed with deficit reduction (and particularly deficit reduction by getting the government to spend less), but it strikes me as reasonable. Very interesting post. But why couldn’t the FDA work with manufacturers to address regulatory concerns and even work with potential suppliers (essentially in an “extension agent” role) to raise quality levels, without this necessarily increasing prices? If having a stable supply of high quality drugs is a public good that the market alone is not providing, which is the clear take-away from this posting, then it makes sense for the government to step in and help supply the public good. I realize that may be infeasible, politically, in an era where everyone is obsessed with deficit reduction (and particularly deficit reduction by getting the government to spend less), but it strikes me as reasonable.

]]> Comment on Comparative Effectiveness and the SATURN study Comparing Crestor with Lipitor by Mike Wokasch http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/09/12/comparative-effectiveness-and-the-saturn-study-comparing-crestor-with-lipitor/comment-page-1/#comment-1391 Mike Wokasch Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:33:30 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1246#comment-1391 Ron, Thanks for your comment. Perhaps one of the greatest deficiencies of typical comparative effectiveness trials is that they are not designed to evaluate how individuals or even subgroups might benefit (or be more susceptible to adverse reaction) from one drug compared to the other. They look at how the general population of patients (the masses) might respond to treatment. This approach may benefit payers and patients for whom it makes no difference but it does not help patients (might even make it difficult for them to get the right drug or pay much more for the one that works for them) who might respond better to one compared to the other. mike@pharmareform.com Ron,
Thanks for your comment. Perhaps one of the greatest deficiencies of typical comparative effectiveness trials is that they are not designed to evaluate how individuals or even subgroups might benefit (or be more susceptible to adverse reaction) from one drug compared to the other. They look at how the general population of patients (the masses) might respond to treatment. This approach may benefit payers and patients for whom it makes no difference but it does not help patients (might even make it difficult for them to get the right drug or pay much more for the one that works for them) who might respond better to one compared to the other. mike@pharmareform.com

]]> Comment on Comparative Effectiveness and the SATURN study Comparing Crestor with Lipitor by Ron Miklos http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/09/12/comparative-effectiveness-and-the-saturn-study-comparing-crestor-with-lipitor/comment-page-1/#comment-1390 Ron Miklos Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:48:40 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1246#comment-1390 I have been on both of these drugs and Crestor, for me, was far superior to Lipitor. I had side effects with Lipitor. Crestor raised my HDL and lowered my bad cholesterol to normal levels. Having sold pharmaceuticals, there is no such thing as one size fits all. There is a danger in going to a strict formulary and all these statins are not created equal. I have been on both of these drugs and Crestor, for me, was far superior to Lipitor. I had side effects with Lipitor. Crestor raised my HDL and lowered my bad cholesterol to normal levels. Having sold pharmaceuticals, there is no such thing as one size fits all. There is a danger in going to a strict formulary and all these statins are not created equal.

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by Mike Wokasch http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1387 Mike Wokasch Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:57:18 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1387 Yeoh, Thank you for your comment. This is not about how to manage and motivate employees but rather the realities of the magnitude of change to expect if pharmaceutical sales representatives are classified as "non-exempt hourly " employees. Trust and empowerment are important in an employer-employee relationship but from what I have read there is little flexibility in the law when it comes to making sure hourly employees accurately record their time on the job and are paid accordingly. mike@pharmareform.com Yeoh,
Thank you for your comment. This is not about how to manage and motivate employees but rather the realities of the magnitude of change to expect if pharmaceutical sales representatives are classified as “non-exempt hourly ” employees. Trust and empowerment are important in an employer-employee relationship but from what I have read there is little flexibility in the law when it comes to making sure hourly employees accurately record their time on the job and are paid accordingly. mike@pharmareform.com

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by Yeoh http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1385 Yeoh Thu, 15 Sep 2011 01:59:17 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1385 This kind of regulations will greatly reduce the morale & productivity of Pharma Companies - trust & empowerment are two of the great factors in motivating an employee to churn out productivity & creativity in line with the Pharma code of ethics. A certain amount of freedom which is not abused, can boost up the morale & figthing spirit of field sales force rather than close scrutinity. This kind of regulations will greatly reduce the morale & productivity of Pharma Companies – trust & empowerment are two of the great factors in motivating an employee to churn out productivity & creativity in line with the Pharma code of ethics. A certain amount of freedom which is not abused, can boost up the morale & figthing spirit of field sales force rather than close scrutinity.

]]> Comment on Are Pharmaceutical Marketing and Sales Targeting Pharmacists? by Mike Wokasch http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/06/20/are-pharmaceutical-marketing-and-sales-targeting-pharmacists/comment-page-1/#comment-1374 Mike Wokasch Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:58:31 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1178#comment-1374 Eleanor, I worked at Covance, a contract research organization similar to Quintiles. I feel contract research organizations are sufficiently independent and add significant value to the drug development process. These companies have matured over the past 30 years and now have expertise, resources, and capabilities beyond that that even found in many big pharmaceutical companies.T hey provide considerable staffing flexibility to biotech and pharma companies that need varying levels of preclinical or clinical development expertise and support resources at any one time. For many clinical studies involving thousands of patients, hundreds of clinical sites, and the need for global execution, contract research organizations are often the only option to getting these large complex studies done. mike@pharmareform.com Eleanor,
I worked at Covance, a contract research organization similar to Quintiles. I feel contract research organizations are sufficiently independent and add significant value to the drug development process. These companies have matured over the past 30 years and now have expertise, resources, and capabilities beyond that that even found in many big pharmaceutical companies.T hey provide considerable staffing flexibility to biotech and pharma companies that need varying levels of preclinical or clinical development expertise and support resources at any one time. For many clinical studies involving thousands of patients, hundreds of clinical sites, and the need for global execution, contract research organizations are often the only option to getting these large complex studies done. mike@pharmareform.com

]]> Comment on Are Pharmaceutical Marketing and Sales Targeting Pharmacists? by Eleanor Ng http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/06/20/are-pharmaceutical-marketing-and-sales-targeting-pharmacists/comment-page-1/#comment-1366 Eleanor Ng Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:30:13 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1178#comment-1366 Thanks Mike for the excellent appraisal of what the future can hold for pharmacists. I am a pharmacist from Melbourne, Australia and am humbled by the fact that the Australian government have thus far, stepped in the right direction for the future of patient focused care and for pharmacists alike. Please refer to Australia's improving, evolving 'Home medication review' system found on http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/pbs/fourth-agreement/hmr.jsp which I'm sure you are already aware of. This in my opinion, is a leading example of how pharmacists can improve their chances of survival in the overcrowded market of pharmacists in Australia. It also can improve patient outcomes, adherence, and patient education, as my experiences in this field demonstrates this. I am curious as to know your opinion on companies such as 'QUINTILES' which seem to have created a whole new industry supporting big Pharma companies and whether they are independent enough from big pharma stakeholders and whether they genuinely increase the number of drugs made available to patients in a time where the incidence of disease exceeds the number of new therapies approved and made available. Thank you. Eleanor.f.ng@gmail.com Thanks Mike for the excellent appraisal of what the future can hold for pharmacists.

I am a pharmacist from Melbourne, Australia and am humbled by the fact that the Australian government have thus far, stepped in the right direction for the future of patient focused care and for pharmacists alike. Please refer to Australia’s improving, evolving ‘Home medication review’ system found on http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/pbs/fourth-agreement/hmr.jsp which I’m sure you are already aware of.
This in my opinion, is a leading example of how pharmacists can improve their chances of survival in the overcrowded market of pharmacists in Australia. It also can improve patient outcomes, adherence, and patient education, as my experiences in this field demonstrates this.

I am curious as to know your opinion on companies such as ‘QUINTILES’ which seem to have created a whole new industry supporting big Pharma companies and whether they are independent enough from big pharma stakeholders and whether they genuinely increase the number of drugs made available to patients in a time where the incidence of disease exceeds the number of new therapies approved and made available. Thank you.

Eleanor.f.ng@gmail.com

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by Game is over http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1342 Game is over Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:32 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1342 The salient phrase in the orginal post is this: "not sales people or professionals exercising discretion or independent judgment". When pharma reps became "sample droppers" and learned to read off a script they ceased exercising professional judgment. The legal departments, scared of lawsuits for off-label use, have limited the exercise of professional discretion. When your discretion is reduced to deciding which catering service to use for a physician office lunch, the game has fundamentally changed forever. Sad but true. The salient phrase in the orginal post is this: “not sales people or professionals exercising discretion or independent judgment”.

When pharma reps became “sample droppers” and learned to read off a script they ceased exercising professional judgment. The legal departments, scared of lawsuits for off-label use, have limited the exercise of professional discretion. When your discretion is reduced to deciding which catering service to use for a physician office lunch, the game has fundamentally changed forever. Sad but true.

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by Kerry http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1340 Kerry Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:40:58 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1340 The presumption in here is that pharma jobs will still be considered to be as worthy financially as they are now. Why does everyone assume that this is a job that will always be a $70K - $100K salary? I can see pharma also cutting salaries accordingly. And if you don't think what they are paying is enough, then you won't take the job. But there are certainly enough people out there, young and old, beginner or veteran, that will take a $50K/yr job, especially in today's economy, and given the number of sales rep jobs that have disappeared permanently. The presumption in here is that pharma jobs will still be considered to be as worthy financially as they are now. Why does everyone assume that this is a job that will always be a $70K – $100K salary? I can see pharma also cutting salaries accordingly. And if you don’t think what they are paying is enough, then you won’t take the job. But there are certainly enough people out there, young and old, beginner or veteran, that will take a $50K/yr job, especially in today’s economy, and given the number of sales rep jobs that have disappeared permanently.

]]> Comment on Do Prescription Drugs Add to, Shift, or Reduce Healthcare Costs? by Mike Wokasch http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/08/09/do-prescription-drugs-add-to-shift-or-reduce-healthcare-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-1339 Mike Wokasch Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:59:01 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1224#comment-1339 Drew, I agree completely. But again, despite making perfect sense and seemingly obvious, these "pill plus" programs will have to be validated for their real world value contribution. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. mike@pharmareform.com Drew,
I agree completely. But again, despite making perfect sense and seemingly obvious, these “pill plus” programs will have to be validated for their real world value contribution. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. mike@pharmareform.com

]]> Comment on Do Prescription Drugs Add to, Shift, or Reduce Healthcare Costs? by Drew Desjardins http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/08/09/do-prescription-drugs-add-to-shift-or-reduce-healthcare-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-1338 Drew Desjardins Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:44:44 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1224#comment-1338 Mike - Agree with your assessment that pharmaceutical manufacturers are going to have to demonstrate brand value through real world data. Another important developing trend is the delivery of "pill plus" programs that show how a fully integrated adherence program in combination with a drug can improve patient outcomes and lead to reduced medical costs. This approach can be truly game-changing in an environment that is becoming increasingly scrutinized by payers and politicians and rapidly genericized. Whoever demonstrates the best value through these pill plus programs will have an edge with payers and ultimately stands to win in the post healthcare reform era. Mike – Agree with your assessment that pharmaceutical manufacturers are going to have to demonstrate brand value through real world data. Another important developing trend is the delivery of “pill plus” programs that show how a fully integrated adherence program in combination with a drug can improve patient outcomes and lead to reduced medical costs. This approach can be truly game-changing in an environment that is becoming increasingly scrutinized by payers and politicians and rapidly genericized. Whoever demonstrates the best value through these pill plus programs will have an edge with payers and ultimately stands to win in the post healthcare reform era.

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by Mildred Marter http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1337 Mildred Marter Thu, 04 Aug 2011 02:14:38 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1337 <blockquote cite="#commentbody-1329"> <strong><a href="#comment-1329" rel="nofollow">YeahRight</a> :</strong> <blockquote cite="#commentbody-1326"> <strong><a href="#comment-1326" rel="nofollow">Mildred Marter </a> :</strong> <blockquote cite="#commentbody-1316"> <strong><a href="#comment-1316" rel="nofollow">Pharma was my life</a> :</strong>LOLThis will ruin the life of most reps with the GPS, except many companies now consider drive time to and from the first call personal time, in reality I suspect most reps will not appreciate the monitoring. It is going to be interesting…..can this actually be done…..”big brother” as Mr Orwell described. </blockquote> Where have you been? There is already GPS in most cars and have been for the last 5 years at least. Mine is under my driver’s seat. It’s the size of a pack of smokes.</blockquote> No, there is not Company GPS tracking in most cars as you are implying. Many cars have the ability to track where you are all day long, but few if any pharma companies GPS-track their reps. But just keep wearing your foil hat, OK? </blockquote> I have a teenage son and we installed GPS in his car. When I was there I asked the guy to look at what was under my seat. He confirmed it was GPS and I work for one of the big pharma companies. Go to the PHH website. You can click on an area that is advertising to employers. It says, "Get the most productivity out of your employees." It talks all about GPS. Well guess what? My company uses PHH.

YeahRight :

Mildred Marter :

Pharma was my life :LOLThis will ruin the life of most reps with the GPS, except many companies now consider drive time to and from the first call personal time, in reality I suspect most reps will not appreciate the monitoring. It is going to be interesting…..can this actually be done…..”big brother” as Mr Orwell described.

Where have you been? There is already GPS in most cars and have been for the last 5 years at least. Mine is under my driver’s seat. It’s the size of a pack of smokes.

No, there is not Company GPS tracking in most cars as you are implying. Many cars have the ability to track where you are all day long, but few if any pharma companies GPS-track their reps. But just keep wearing your foil hat, OK?

I have a teenage son and we installed GPS in his car. When I was there I asked the guy to look at what was under my seat. He confirmed it was GPS and I work for one of the big pharma companies. Go to the PHH website. You can click on an area that is advertising to employers. It says, “Get the most productivity out of your employees.” It talks all about GPS. Well guess what? My company uses PHH.

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by Been here before http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1336 Been here before Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:48:53 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1336 In a different industry, we were found to be non-exempt employees. Contrary to Bubba's comment, the sales day may begin when you start calls, but if you are required to answer emails, do administrative (expense reports, special projects, etc.) they are required to calculate this into your "work time"... It was all documented in my previous position, and compensated. Hence going home after a day in the field, and needing to generate a report that takes a couple of hours will need to be accounted for... So this much-needed admin day that reps have been screaming for WILL be a reality... In a different industry, we were found to be non-exempt employees. Contrary to Bubba’s comment, the sales day may begin when you start calls, but if you are required to answer emails, do administrative (expense reports, special projects, etc.) they are required to calculate this into your “work time”… It was all documented in my previous position, and compensated. Hence going home after a day in the field, and needing to generate a report that takes a couple of hours will need to be accounted for… So this much-needed admin day that reps have been screaming for WILL be a reality…

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by me http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1334 me Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:52:42 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1334 <a href="#comment-1333" rel="nofollow">@pharmvet </a> From a former rep, you are spot on. Reps only brag about lax work ethic, then get angry when management "plays big brother". The fact is offical HR policy in virtually all companies is "first doc at 8:30 and last doc at 5pm. Then reps routinely brag on cafe pharma etc, how most work Tues to thurs from 10-2. The bottomline is that if they thought that they werent doing anything wrong, they would not lie in their computers. @pharmvet
From a former rep, you are spot on. Reps only brag about lax work ethic, then get angry when management “plays big brother”. The fact is offical HR policy in virtually all companies is “first doc at 8:30 and last doc at 5pm. Then reps routinely brag on cafe pharma etc, how most work Tues to thurs from 10-2. The bottomline is that if they thought that they werent doing anything wrong, they would not lie in their computers.

]]> Comment on New Work Rules for Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives by pharmvet http://www.pharmareform.com/2011/07/27/new-work-rules-for-pharmaceutical-sales-representatives/comment-page-1/#comment-1333 pharmvet Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:04:09 +0000 http://www.pharmareform.com/?p=1218#comment-1333 Call me old fashioned. I have a PhD in pharmacology and have been doing clinical resdearch in pharma for almosgt 30 years. When I started in 1983, we were required to fill out weekly time sheets, since our time was expensed back to the project cost. Management could then figure out if their money was being well spent. There was no big brotherism, just do the darn sheets so that the accountants could play with the numbers. On occasion we might round up a number or two to make the total come out correctly, but that was the extent of fudging. I worked in Phase 4 with marketing and sales reps who had to do the same thing. No one would ever have dreamed of falsifying calls or trying to enter such data since the data itself served a purpose. In contrast, many drug reps overtly brag about how many calls they fake/day and how they think they're pulling a fast one on management. Thus with the GPS thing, they have created their own mess, dishonoring the industry in the process, and now let them lie in the bed they have created. Call me old fashioned. I have a PhD in pharmacology and have been doing clinical resdearch in pharma for almosgt 30 years. When I started in 1983, we were required to fill out weekly time sheets, since our time was expensed back to the project cost. Management could then figure out if their money was being well spent. There was no big brotherism, just do the darn sheets so that the accountants could play with the numbers. On occasion we might round up a number or two to make the total come out correctly, but that was the extent of fudging.

I worked in Phase 4 with marketing and sales reps who had to do the same thing. No one would ever have dreamed of falsifying calls or trying to enter such data since the data itself served a purpose. In contrast, many drug reps overtly brag about how many calls they fake/day and how they think they’re pulling a fast one on management. Thus with the GPS thing, they have created their own mess, dishonoring the industry in the process, and now let them lie in the bed they have created.

]]>