I chose to share the official definition.
“But can’t they just get all that information themselves?” Uh, no, they can’t.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for drug reps. Physicians would receive sufficient pharmaceutical training in medical school and residency, and this training would last them indefinitely. Doctors would have sufficient time to update this training, if necessary, by reading the latest medical journals throughout their forty-year careers. Finally, pharmaceutical companies would bring to market only those drugs that provided marked benefits over products already in use.
Alas, the medical world is a few light-years from perfect. Physicians begin their careers with a solid foundation of pharmaceutical knowledge. Most medical schools require a second-year pharmacology class lasting one or two semesters, in which students are instructed on the mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetics of the products in the major drug classes. Microbiology classes cover some of the same area regarding infectious disease drugs, such as antibiotics, giving the majority of students a thorough review. In the third and fourth years of medical school, part of the internal medicine rotations again deal with the pharmacokinetics of drugs. Then, after selecting a particular field of medicine, the residents are educated about drugs specific to their field, so rheumatologists learn about pain medications while allergistsfocus on antihistamines. Thus, it is fair to say that most doctors exit their residencies with a solid knowledge of pharmaceuticals. “The problem,” a pediatric ICU specialist and friend from Notre Dame explained to me, “is that most MDs in private practice lose their source of education about drugs and don’t have time to either refresh themselves with what they previously learned or, more important, educate themselves about new drugs.”
This is a familiar refrain among physicians: lack of time. Doctors have a tough gig. In addition to seeing thirty to fifty patients a day, physicians are expected to do dictations for each patient visit, make hospital rounds, explain treatment options to family members, call HMOs to fight for prescription coverage, and speak to pharmacists who like to double-check dosages on prescriptions. After all that in a day’s work, a doctor can choose to play with his three-year-old daughter or pick up the New England Journal of Medicine. What would you do? They won’t miss the earth-shattering breakthroughs like Viagra, but the subtler advances like modifications in dosing or the addition of a second agent do get past them. Without the time to do all of the professional reading necessary in order to stay current, physicians are forced to rely on drug reps for updates.
Of the three duties listed in the official job description, sales reps could be replaced for two of them: Free drug samples could be mailed to physicians, and specific product questions could be answered via twenty-four-hourdoctors-access-only Web sites. It is an unavoidable feature of the system, however, that physicians need reps to keep them up to speed. A salesperson has to provide helpful information only a few times before establishing himself as an asset. Once “in,” a rep can take advantage of his trusted position and begin influencing the decision-making process.
Things would be a lot easier for doctors if the drugs in each class were radically different from one another. However, there are very few “Michael Jordans” in the pharmaceutical world, best-in-class products that have repeatedly proven far superior to their competition. Such drugs would be used first by every physician every time; if a new agent proved itself more effective than M.J. with an equal safety profile, everyone would obviously hear the news and change their treatments accordingly. Unfortunately, that scenario occurs about as often as an heir apparent to Air Jordan bursts onto the scene and continues flying high—Kobe
“But can’t they just get all that information themselves?” Uh, no, they can’t.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for drug reps. Physicians would receive sufficient pharmaceutical training in medical school and residency, and this training would last them indefinitely. Doctors would have sufficient time to update this training, if necessary, by reading the latest medical journals throughout their forty-year careers. Finally, pharmaceutical companies would bring to market only those drugs that provided marked benefits over products already in use.
Alas, the medical world is a few light-years from perfect. Physicians begin their careers with a solid foundation of pharmaceutical knowledge. Most medical schools require a second-year pharmacology class lasting one or two semesters, in which students are instructed on the mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetics of the products in the major drug classes. Microbiology classes cover some of the same area regarding infectious disease drugs, such as antibiotics, giving the majority of students a thorough review. In the third and fourth years of medical school, part of the internal medicine rotations again deal with the pharmacokinetics of drugs. Then, after selecting a particular field of medicine, the residents are educated about drugs specific to their field, so rheumatologists learn about pain medications while allergistsfocus on antihistamines. Thus, it is fair to say that most doctors exit their residencies with a solid knowledge of pharmaceuticals. “The problem,” a pediatric ICU specialist and friend from Notre Dame explained to me, “is that most MDs in private practice lose their source of education about drugs and don’t have time to either refresh themselves with what they previously learned or, more important, educate themselves about new drugs.”
This is a familiar refrain among physicians: lack of time. Doctors have a tough gig. In addition to seeing thirty to fifty patients a day, physicians are expected to do dictations for each patient visit, make hospital rounds, explain treatment options to family members, call HMOs to fight for prescription coverage, and speak to pharmacists who like to double-check dosages on prescriptions. After all that in a day’s work, a doctor can choose to play with his three-year-old daughter or pick up the New England Journal of Medicine. What would you do? They won’t miss the earth-shattering breakthroughs like Viagra, but the subtler advances like modifications in dosing or the addition of a second agent do get past them. Without the time to do all of the professional reading necessary in order to stay current, physicians are forced to rely on drug reps for updates.
Of the three duties listed in the official job description, sales reps could be replaced for two of them: Free drug samples could be mailed to physicians, and specific product questions could be answered via twenty-four-hourdoctors-access-only Web sites. It is an unavoidable feature of the system, however, that physicians need reps to keep them up to speed. A salesperson has to provide helpful information only a few times before establishing himself as an asset. Once “in,” a rep can take advantage of his trusted position and begin influencing the decision-making process.
Things would be a lot easier for doctors if the drugs in each class were radically different from one another. However, there are very few “Michael Jordans” in the pharmaceutical world, best-in-class products that have repeatedly proven far superior to their competition. Such drugs would be used first by every physician every time; if a new agent proved itself more effective than M.J. with an equal safety profile, everyone would obviously hear the news and change their treatments accordingly. Unfortunately, that scenario occurs about as often as an heir apparent to Air Jordan bursts onto the scene and continues flying high—Kobe
Similar Books
