Search

Recent Posts

• ChangingAging.org Redesign -- Please Bookmark!
• Disaster in Buffalo
• Power Up Friday
• Blanchard WinsDays
• Kevin Frick writes...
• Monkhouse Monday
• Getting Closer!
• Blanchard WinsDays
• Power Up Friday
• My Pick for Health and Human Services
• Understanding Health Care Reform
• Facts Are Stubborn Things: Social Security Edition
• Monkhouse Monday
• Localism is Coming
• Krugman Can't Wait...

Recent Comments

• WepDeeseCig on
  A Sermo(n) for Pfizer
• Dorothea Johnson on
  A Sermo(n) for Pfizer

Category Archives

• AGING 100
• Aging
• Culture
• Dementia
• Eden Alternative
• Erickson School
• Green House
• Health Policy
• Longevity
• Media
• Rockets

Monthly Archives

• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Announcements

Blog Data

Ageless Project

Bigger Blogger

Blog Directory

Blog Universe

« Child Free | Main | Most popular blogs »

October 18, 2007 |Permalink |Comments (2)

A Sermo(n) for Pfizer

The following article is a virtual Master's level course on the VERY dysfunctional relationship between the corporations that make drugs and the people who prescribe them. I am almost always an optimist but, in this case, it's a matter of "read it and weep."

By AVERY JOHNSON

A new Pfizer Inc. partnership with a doctors' Web site could attract fresh attention to how drug companies interact with physicians.

The New York pharmaceuticals maker will announce a partnership today with Sermo Inc., a social-networking site for licensed physicians. Facing financial pressures as some of its best-selling products lose patent protection, Pfizer is looking for more-efficient ways to reach the doctors who prescribe its medicines. Under the arrangement, Pfizer-affiliated doctors will be able to talk candidly with the site's 31,000 members, potentially giving the company insights into prescribing patterns and a way to show doctors data on its drugs.

It is risky territory for Pfizer, though. The drug industry's interactions with doctors are highly scrutinized by regulators and lawmakers for signs that they are offering financial incentives to drive sales or promoting their drugs for unapproved uses. Pfizer plans to discuss the partnership with the Food and Drug Administration.

Many doctors, too, are wary of undue industry influence on their profession. "Often it's looked badly upon by other physicians when you are perceived to have a close relationship with a drug company," says Sermo member Richard Thrasher, an ear-nose-and-throat specialist from McKinney, Texas, who generally welcomes Pfizer to the site.

Sermo, founded in September 2006 in Cambridge, Mass., provides a forum for doctors to seek diagnostic advice from peers. The site earns money by letting clients such as hedge funds monitor doctors' anonymous conversations and thus gain insight into, say, the popularity of certain treatments. Sermo rewards physicians whose input is highly ranked by other members and soon will offer to pay doctors for participating in its clients' surveys.
Avery Johnson discusses how Pfizer plans to reach more physicians through a social networking site, instead of sending sales reps to doctors' offices.

Pfizer has historically fielded the industry's most aggressive sales force, but laid off 20% of its U.S. sales force last year and more than 20% of its European sales team in January.

Pfizer doctors, who will be clearly identified, will be able to ask questions of the Sermo community or respond to posts. If Pfizer doctors were to offer comments others deem biased, the system provides for quick rebuttals.

Sermo chief executive Daniel Palestrant says he initially didn't want to involve drug companies, but changed his mind when physicians on the site started asking for the industry to communicate with them in a medium more convenient than sending sales people to their offices. "It takes a lot of courage for Pfizer to do this, because the response isn't going to be universally positive," Dr. Palestrant says. "Pharma is always in crisis, always under fire for something, and there have been trust issues with physicians."

Michael Berelowitz, Pfizer's senior vice president for global medical, says the company wants to communicate more openly, despite the risk. "We live in an environment where we're closely monitored all the time and have constraints around what we say and how we say it," he says. "Given that this kind of medium is the way forward...we have to learn how to behave in it."

Neither company would disclose financial terms of the agreement.

Comments ( 2)

As a registered nurse, I have always felt the strong influence of pharmaceutical companies' marketing strategies on medical providers. I work in a nursing home and have the opportunity to observe the long-term impact that the pharmacy/provider relationship has on our residents (patients). I have been a first hand witness to the changes in prescriptive practices following a visit from a marketing rep.
I don't believe that our physicians are blinded by these strategies. I think that they try, to the best of their ability, to use their critical thinking in selecting the best drugs possible for each individual resident and their unique condition. I do believe, however, that in the absence of objective and unbiased research studies out there, providers have no choice but to rely on the only information available to them and "muddle" their way through the ethical ambiguity of the pharmaceutical information.
I think that Sermo is a perfect example of how easy it is for professionals (not to mention laypeople) to fall into the trap of pharmaceutical brainwashing. Sermo refers to their business model as an "information arbitrage", but upon a closer look one can easily see that it is nothing more than a marketing analysis with fringe benefits.
On a somewhat separate note, I am saddened by the passive approach that we, nurses, take in educating physicians as well as patients about our experiences with drug effectiveness. I realize that I lack the medical background and sophistication to make a clinical judgment on treatment modalities, however, let's face it - our role as nurses is to monitor the responses of the medications and treatments that our patients receive. Who is in a better position than us (especially in long term care) to give an objective opinion on the effectiveness of these medications?!? The challenge is that forming an opinion will require us to use our knowledge and skill in assessing, diagnosing (nursing diagnosis, that is),intervening, planning, and evaluating the effectiveness of these medications. The challenge is that, a lot of us, see ourselves as nothing more than "pill pushers" and we don't trust our abilities to do the things that our nursing license calls upon us to do.
As a result, a vicious cycle is created, one that is very typical for the health care industry. Physicians write one prescription after the next, the nurses make sure that the meds are administered timely, the patients make sure that all the pills get swallowed (would like a cracker with this?), and the pharmaceutical companies make sure that we never run out of supplies.
I know a resident from our nursing home who says to her nurse every morning "give me my pills; I need one to pick me up, another one to slow me down, and the rest, to keep you around!"

Posted by Dorothea Johnson
October 31, 2007 7:59 PM

see it, it may be exactly what you are looking for
[URL=http://users1.nofeehost.com/paulettebennie/returningwesternchurch44.html]vitreous[/url]

Posted by WepDeeseCig
November 2, 2007 7:42 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: (You may use HTML tags for style)