Here is a prime example of propaganda. https://www.statnews.com/2023/07/05/ozempic-rybelsus-novo-nordisk-meals-for-doctors/ One of my coworkers was in a meeting and this came up in the agenda. So, this is my new job which I started just over a year ago. I am the person who pays these doctors. The article is misleading as The Sunshine Act strictly prohibits exactly what is being stated in the article. What we do is we contract with doctors and healthcare organizations to get the HCP/HCO perspective on certain drugs - are they working? Are they working as they should? and, if it's still in R&D, what are your thoughts on this sort of treatment? There is a limit to what can be reimbursed. For example, a seminar is at a hotel and a meal is not provided. The HCP would go to lunch. However, because the only reason that HCP is there and needs a meal outside his home or work, we reimburse up to $50/day which is pretty standard. We even reimburse for a modest hotel if necessary. We also pay for the time to travel if the event takes place more than 4 hours away and there is a specific formula for deriving at that which is not in my wheelhouse, but it is in the contract. My job is to ensure everything the HCP/HCO invoices is in alignment with the contract. What we do not do and absolutely cannot do according to the sunshine act, is do what the author is alluding to in the headline. I think it's time for news and other information providing services to be held accountable (like the Sunshine Act) for the shit they publish.
I do have a few questions, and the article is paywalled. That is a sign of propaganda right there. Isn't Ozempic the product currently being abused by shady doctors prescribing it for non-diabetic weight loss patients? Are these doctors all endocrinologists, or are some of them the shady doctors pumping up sales for non-diabetic weight loss prescriptions which will boost the company's profits? Not every pitch to doctors is about giving them bribes to overprescribe your product. However, if you are giving them some schwag and trips to nice places they want to go with free hotels and meals, they might want to keep prescribing the product. It is brand name and I think is currently promoting itself while it does not have a generic competition. As a diabetic does Ozempic actually help me over presently prescribed medications, and if you promote my doctor changing my medication from a cheaper and working medication doesn't that constitute bribery from the pharmaceutical company who just made a new and trademarked product that may or may not work better than older products? Just because the bribe is small to get doctors online with pushing a new medication does not mean it isn't a problem. Also, how far does this go? They are talking about millions of dollars in payouts to push Ozempic. There is a huge amount of money there, and how do you know all the doctors are taking money for legitimate purchases? Also you admit that some of these payments do not fall under your area so if you are not the auditor who does the whole project how do you know there isn't trouble in some other area while your payments are fine. Oh, and no data refutation. Just a point you seem like a biased source being an employee who wants to rationalize and defend working for known corrupt pharmaceutical companies who like to pay doctors to prescribe their new products over others. I get you probably see things we cannot see due to company confidentiality, so please do not endanger yourself for some shitty WF argument, but you are arguing against a paywalled article with no other data. You are not making me change any opinions with that.
I don't know. But, if that is the case, then the headline should read "Novo Nordisk violates Sunshine Act." Because the headline as is, is a non-issue.
Well, the article is a paywalled piece. If they really want to get something out there because of danger they should not paywall it. First sign it is an advertisement/propaganda designed to get my money is they threaten my health care and then put the reasons behind a paywall. If I have to pay to read the life saving information that is against the pharmaceuticals they are sort of falling into the same problem that big pharma has.
I'm not getting a paywall. The article opens right up for me. In fact, when the coworker showed me the pic I copied in the OP, I typed that url into my internet window (chrome in this case) and it came right up.
It fades for me third paragraph, and it has a huge fee for group access so it might be that you can access it off of your company's VPN and registered equipment as an industry source?
From the wiki it is an industry publication which has broken a few stories, but not much is said negatively about them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat_(website) at 399 per year per user they better have some pretty important things coming out. 300 on a multi-user deal. @Jenee maybe if they are not that good you might want to mention to your company they could save a ton of money. As for what I can read of the article the math seems to work out to them covering 20-25 dollars a meal for the doctors so it is not like they are breaking the bank. That is a burger or some spaghetti and a non-alcohol drink around here, and that is not including tip. That might be the buffet cost at a hotel that serves food, but if you are eating at the hotel that is probably the cost of a burger on a hotel menu. I cannot read what they say, but it sounds like they have arranged a corporate discount for their members at the hotels. It sounds like the doctors get their food at the hotel, and the hotel discounts the overall cost to the group that books their seminars/conventions at the hotel. The only thing that I would be suspicious of with my conspiracy paranoid mind would be the mention of Ozempic and the recent boom in their prescriptions for non-diabetic use as a diet drug. Maybe this is where it was pitched for use for dieters to doctors that were not treating diabetics? For any people who like to whine, that is just a wild guess. I do not think a 25 dollar meal and a hotel stay is buying a lot of doctors off. However, being a pill mill for a new diet drug might be more nefarious and it seemed to have happened with the particular drug mentioned and the company that manufactured it.
The existing pharmaceutical industry is evil. This is a known thing. The headline above is exploiting that thinking. I don't believe Nova Nordisk or any other pharma company is outright disregarding the sunshine act. and if hotels and restaurants are giving discounts, then that's up to the hotel and restaurant. The pharma company is only reimbursing expenses the consultant incurs in the course of .. the consultation. IOW, pharma companies are not "buying" these meals in that everyone gets lobster and the pharma rep pays on a corporate card. Everyone is buying their own meal and the cost of that meal is reimbursed. I suppose that is splitting hairs, but ... if you look at the receipts and the meals, it's really not. and yea, that exactly what I have to do - look at every receipt to ensure it's within standards. and those standards aren't specific to pharma consultants. I used to go to seminars for real estate and property assessments and got the same rates.
I will agree the connection does not seem to be there. Doctors do have to learn about the new pharmaceuticals. Even in cosmotology you would go to events like this for new product lines to see if you wanted to promote them. Lots of hotels are designed to cater to business things like this. I cannot see where the article is going, but you are going to have some food given out. According to the math at the beginning of the article, and maybe I fucked up the calculations so double check, 470k meals at 11 mill is really only about 20-25 dollars which is a cheep meal that I would expect if I had to go to your symposium on your product and answer some of your questions.
I didn't do any math. But, that sounds about right. I've only had to question one receipt and that was for two alcoholic drinks while dude was sitting at the airport.
