The December 31, 2008, edition of The New York Times prominently featured a story on the PhRMA code and its implications for both drug companies and promotional products...
Click here to view the entire article on PPB's site. Don't forget to come back and discuss it here on DT!
Our Sponsors
1
1 reply to this topic
#1
-
- Administrators
-
- 610 posts
Administrator
#2
-
- Members
-
- 53 posts
New Member
Posted 08 January 2009 - 12:29 PM
In addition to the letter written by Steve Slagle, the following letter was also submitted to the New York Times OpEd ediutor for possible publication:
To the editor of The New York Times:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The negative impact on the promotional products industry was not addressed in your December 31<SUP>st</SUP> article, No Mug? Drug Makers Cut Out Goodies For Doctors by Natasha Singer or your January 5<SUP>th</SUP> editorial, No Mugs? but What About Those Fees?. I would like to share some important information with your readers.
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
At a time when jobless rates are at their highest in years and when major segments of the business community are seeking and receiving unprecedented government bailouts and subsidies, a purported attempt to avoid undue influence on physician?s prescribing habits by restricting the distribution of promotional advertising products is ludicrous. We are not talking about extravagant dinners, cruises, hefty ?consulting fees? or other luxury gifts. Rather, we are talking about the elimination of items such as pens, clipboards, business card holders and other items that are used in the day-to-day operation of any physician?s practice. These self-imposed regulations have grouped all ?gifts? together ? regardless of their value and without any consideration of the nature of the items or any understanding of the impact to our industry.
<o:p> </o:p>
The result of this prohibition, whether intended or not, means the loss of thousands of jobs and the elimination of hundreds of businesses ? with more surely to follow ? and an additional negative impact on the overall economy. Promotional products sales in 2007 amounted to over $18 billion dollars, and nearly $1 billion of that total was purchased by the pharmaceutical industry.
<o:p> </o:p>
No study has ever established a negative influence on the way physicians prescribe medications based on what promotional products that physician has received. Do these products help raise an awareness of a specific medication? Absolutely. But does anyone reasonably believe that a physician will prescribe a specific medication over another one because he or she has received a plastic pen with the drug name on it? Apparently that is the perception of a small minority, so all promotional products have been lumped together with much higher priced inducements given to healthcare professionals. Until any detrimental impact on physicians? prescribing habits is established, the promotional products industry should not be singled out from other, more insidious influences, and we should be entitled to retain our long established business relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.
<o:p> </o:p>
The use of promotional products must be considered and evaluated in the context of all other forms of pharmaceutical advertising. Where are the calls to prohibit print advertisements in newspapers and magazines? Why are there no self-imposed restrictions on television advertising? Why is it perfectly acceptable to advertise on busses, subway cars and sports stadiums, but a coffee mug on a doctor?s desk is suddenly taboo? It simply does not make sense to essentially ban one form of advertising but allow every other method to go unfettered.
<o:p> </o:p>
We call for a two year moratorium on the implementation of this voluntary practice of excluding the distribution of promotional products, pending further investigation on the negative impact, if any, these useful tools have on physician prescribing habits. An ancillary benefit of this moratorium will be the valued private support of our nation?s struggling economy, a reduction in the number of unemployment claims caused by this exclusion, and will help ensure that hundreds, if not thousands, of America?s small businesses continue to thrive.
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Jonathan Riegel, CAS
President
Specialty Advertising Association of Greater New York
January 6, 2009
To the editor of The New York Times:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The negative impact on the promotional products industry was not addressed in your December 31<SUP>st</SUP> article, No Mug? Drug Makers Cut Out Goodies For Doctors by Natasha Singer or your January 5<SUP>th</SUP> editorial, No Mugs? but What About Those Fees?. I would like to share some important information with your readers.
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
At a time when jobless rates are at their highest in years and when major segments of the business community are seeking and receiving unprecedented government bailouts and subsidies, a purported attempt to avoid undue influence on physician?s prescribing habits by restricting the distribution of promotional advertising products is ludicrous. We are not talking about extravagant dinners, cruises, hefty ?consulting fees? or other luxury gifts. Rather, we are talking about the elimination of items such as pens, clipboards, business card holders and other items that are used in the day-to-day operation of any physician?s practice. These self-imposed regulations have grouped all ?gifts? together ? regardless of their value and without any consideration of the nature of the items or any understanding of the impact to our industry.
<o:p> </o:p>
The result of this prohibition, whether intended or not, means the loss of thousands of jobs and the elimination of hundreds of businesses ? with more surely to follow ? and an additional negative impact on the overall economy. Promotional products sales in 2007 amounted to over $18 billion dollars, and nearly $1 billion of that total was purchased by the pharmaceutical industry.
<o:p> </o:p>
No study has ever established a negative influence on the way physicians prescribe medications based on what promotional products that physician has received. Do these products help raise an awareness of a specific medication? Absolutely. But does anyone reasonably believe that a physician will prescribe a specific medication over another one because he or she has received a plastic pen with the drug name on it? Apparently that is the perception of a small minority, so all promotional products have been lumped together with much higher priced inducements given to healthcare professionals. Until any detrimental impact on physicians? prescribing habits is established, the promotional products industry should not be singled out from other, more insidious influences, and we should be entitled to retain our long established business relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.
<o:p> </o:p>
The use of promotional products must be considered and evaluated in the context of all other forms of pharmaceutical advertising. Where are the calls to prohibit print advertisements in newspapers and magazines? Why are there no self-imposed restrictions on television advertising? Why is it perfectly acceptable to advertise on busses, subway cars and sports stadiums, but a coffee mug on a doctor?s desk is suddenly taboo? It simply does not make sense to essentially ban one form of advertising but allow every other method to go unfettered.
<o:p> </o:p>
We call for a two year moratorium on the implementation of this voluntary practice of excluding the distribution of promotional products, pending further investigation on the negative impact, if any, these useful tools have on physician prescribing habits. An ancillary benefit of this moratorium will be the valued private support of our nation?s struggling economy, a reduction in the number of unemployment claims caused by this exclusion, and will help ensure that hundreds, if not thousands, of America?s small businesses continue to thrive.
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Jonathan Riegel, CAS
President
Specialty Advertising Association of Greater New York
January 6, 2009
-----------------------------------------
Jonathan Riegel, MAS
Hewlett, NY
Jonathan Riegel, MAS
Hewlett, NY
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
