back
1 comments
It's legal in the way that celebrity/professional endorsement is legal in any other field. It's not inherently wrong, and you would expect that an ostensibly effective product would be touted by respected professionals. And just to be clear, when speaking for the product, the doctors generally must stick to the company's slides and official talking points -- though the doctors have final say over what they present [1].

This is again, not necessarily evil -- in fact, it's a logical continuation of the law which mandates that companies only promote their drugs exactly and only for what FDA regulations approved the drugs for. The problem, as presented in the OP, is when doctors unofficially (i.e personally) endorse/promote/heavily prescribe drugs for off-label uses. Again, not an illegal thing on its own, as doctors are trusted to prescribe what a patient needs based on their professional judgment (or else, Dr. "House, M.D." would be in prison)...but the worry is that a financial relationship with a company (i.e. the payments for touting the official line) have the potential to taint a doctor's professional judgment.

[disclosure: I used to work at ProPublica and on the Dollars for Docs project]

[1] http://www.propublica.org/article/double-dip-doctors-paid-to...

Okay that makes sense but can't one argue that when I see Michael Jordan endorsing a product I can assume that most people know that he is being paid for it. Not to mention my health isn't on the line for the product he is endorsing.

When I get a prescription from a doctor I have no idea whether or not he is getting something out of it. Whether it be speaking fees, a new pen, lunches, or whatever. Legal or not. I just trust that that doc is acting in my best interest.

And thank you for the work on the Dollars for Docs project. I for one am appreciative of this find.

I think this partly comes because the american system is so fragmented.

I believe that in places with centralized healthcare systems, there are people who are responsible to understand the new drugs, both at the level of the healthcare provider and the health ministry - and they guide doctors on what to prescribe.

This makes sense because they don't have a conflict of interest(unless bribed).

After reading part 2 of the article, I was surprised by just how blatantly the financial relationship is predicated on the doctor's professional judgement:

"The government investigation of Risperdal sales later unearthed one email from a Johnson & Johnson salesperson that was typical of the approach. She told her supervisor that she was going to promise one doctor that if he raised his Risperdal market share from 16 percent to 50 percent in the coming 12 months he could become a paid speaker."