The third graph pretty much says it all; research, licensing fees, consulting and speaking engagements (mostly training pharma staff from what I understand) make up almost all of the payments.
I would agree that most of the spending is pretty innocuous or at least on the low-end of "inappropriate".
That said, speaker engagements are a bit of a hot button in the industry right now. Speaker engagements are when pharma pays a physician to speak to other physicians. They typically present material that is authored by the pharmaceutical company. The doctor that presents tend to be pretty high profile and leaders in their field of study.
GSK has decided they will not be doing speaker engagements any longer due to the appearance of using money to influence clinical decisions. They're getting a decent amount of flak from other companies about it (i.e. "it will only hurt them"), but we'll see how it goes. It might cause a change in the industry. GSK will now have their own employees present the material (will it be as effective as a outside physician doing it?).
The pharma-sponsored presentation is a time-honored tradition. Usually held at an upscale restaurant in the evening, the well-paid speaker goes through "the drill" about the product. Slides (and their great graphics) provided by the manufacturer of course.
Years ago being a drug company speaker was a pretty good gig. The presenter was expected to more or less stick to the script, but back then there was a fair amount of leeway and speakers often made the subject more lively by inserting anecdotes or clinical "pearls" from their own experience. Sadly that's no longer allowed to happen.
In the 90's and early 00's intermittent I was a speaker for several pharma companies. Besides the pay it was a lot of fun interacting with colleagues, and getting to be the "expert" on the drug. There were other benefits too, paid travel to speaker and consultant meetings at venues I'd never be able to afford to frequent on my own.
But those days are gone forever. In the current environment the pharma companies don't even hand out ballpoint pens anymore, let alone put speakers up at 5-star resorts.
Haven't worked for any of the firms for nearly 15 years. It's a very different thing now. Once in a great while I'll still attend a dinner presentation, but mostly it's a waste of time.
The drug companies have become virtually paranoid about incurring regulatory or public scorn. Speakers are strictly constrained to say only what's FDA approved, the same info provided in the package insert which I can easily read on my own (and most of the time I already have read it). Why bother going over it again?
So I suspect if companies are terminating speaker programs it's because attendance has fallen off even when "high profile leaders" are presenting. Kind of a shame to see traditions fade away, but the message is clear, "drug dinners" and other ways to market pharmaceuticals will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history.
The drug companies have become virtually paranoid about incurring regulatory or public scorn.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm only familiar with how it is today and yes, companies are absolutely paranoid about following the rules (which is a good thing). Not that surprising considering some of the monster fines these companies have paid.
Now what do those "speaking engagements" actually entail? For example, Hillary Clinton has not disclosed the speeches she's made despite making millions in speaking fees for wall street firms and others.
Comments
The third graph pretty much says it all; research, licensing fees, consulting and speaking engagements (mostly training pharma staff from what I understand) make up almost all of the payments.
Glad to see that the data is so boring.
https://plot.ly/~troyshu/14.embed
I would agree that most of the spending is pretty innocuous or at least on the low-end of "inappropriate".
That said, speaker engagements are a bit of a hot button in the industry right now. Speaker engagements are when pharma pays a physician to speak to other physicians. They typically present material that is authored by the pharmaceutical company. The doctor that presents tend to be pretty high profile and leaders in their field of study.
GSK has decided they will not be doing speaker engagements any longer due to the appearance of using money to influence clinical decisions. They're getting a decent amount of flak from other companies about it (i.e. "it will only hurt them"), but we'll see how it goes. It might cause a change in the industry. GSK will now have their own employees present the material (will it be as effective as a outside physician doing it?).
The pharma-sponsored presentation is a time-honored tradition. Usually held at an upscale restaurant in the evening, the well-paid speaker goes through "the drill" about the product. Slides (and their great graphics) provided by the manufacturer of course.
Years ago being a drug company speaker was a pretty good gig. The presenter was expected to more or less stick to the script, but back then there was a fair amount of leeway and speakers often made the subject more lively by inserting anecdotes or clinical "pearls" from their own experience. Sadly that's no longer allowed to happen.
In the 90's and early 00's intermittent I was a speaker for several pharma companies. Besides the pay it was a lot of fun interacting with colleagues, and getting to be the "expert" on the drug. There were other benefits too, paid travel to speaker and consultant meetings at venues I'd never be able to afford to frequent on my own.
But those days are gone forever. In the current environment the pharma companies don't even hand out ballpoint pens anymore, let alone put speakers up at 5-star resorts.
Haven't worked for any of the firms for nearly 15 years. It's a very different thing now. Once in a great while I'll still attend a dinner presentation, but mostly it's a waste of time.
The drug companies have become virtually paranoid about incurring regulatory or public scorn. Speakers are strictly constrained to say only what's FDA approved, the same info provided in the package insert which I can easily read on my own (and most of the time I already have read it). Why bother going over it again?
So I suspect if companies are terminating speaker programs it's because attendance has fallen off even when "high profile leaders" are presenting. Kind of a shame to see traditions fade away, but the message is clear, "drug dinners" and other ways to market pharmaceuticals will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history.
The drug companies have become virtually paranoid about incurring regulatory or public scorn.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm only familiar with how it is today and yes, companies are absolutely paranoid about following the rules (which is a good thing). Not that surprising considering some of the monster fines these companies have paid.
Thanks for the insights, it's always amazing who reads and comments on HN.
There are outliers (Genentech, Stryker, Medtronic, DePuy, etc.) when looking at the share of "Royalty or License" payments.
And what the graph doesn't show is how these companies are related. Who owns who? Who's independent and who isn't?
Now what do those "speaking engagements" actually entail? For example, Hillary Clinton has not disclosed the speeches she's made despite making millions in speaking fees for wall street firms and others.
What are you implying. Next thing you'll be saying her daughter really isn't qualified to work for a hedge fund. How rude.