What's wrong with Big Pharma?
Let me tell you what's wrong with big pharma, with particular reference to the graphic.
It is unsurprising that out of 100 reps only 25 have a meaningful, two-way discussion with physicians.
Why is it unsurprising? It's tough to have a meaningful conversation when your response to most questions is "Doctor, I can't answer your question, but if you call 1-800-XXXX our medical information department will provide you with the answers you need."
For regulatory reasons, reps are now trained to give very risk-focused presentations. To give you one example, during a recent antidepressant launch, about 25% of a full call was devoted to efficacy and clinical data, and the remaining 75% was devoted to a long, long list of every possible thing that could go wrong as well as a detailed exposition on the product's risk management program. Reps were monitored and evaluated on their delivery of the full risk message.
Also for regulatory reasons, many reps are inadequately trained. Why? Because every piece of educational material that goes to a sales rep has to be vetted by regulatory and legal. As one might expect given the regulatory environment, regulatory and legal staff at big pharma are extremely risk focused. In all too many cases, this means that the meat of rep educational material is removed and replaced with bland language that has little educational value.
This isn't the fault of big pharma, nor is it the fault of DDMAC and other regulatory bodies. But put them together and you get a feedback mechanism that dilutes the value of the rep/physician interaction.
In short, if you can't say anything of value, why not just stop by and drop off some samples and a PI?
In many ways, big pharma has their hierarchy of reps backwards. The most experienced reps sell to specialty. These guys usally have enough knowledge that they can have a high-level discussion with a customer about their therapeutic area. But they're generally preaching to the choir.
On the other hand, most mass market reps (who sell to PCPs) are inexperienced. A mass market representative with the level of knowledge of a specialty representative might be able to bring real value to PCPs, who see patients with a broad spectrum of conditions and who generally don't have time to keep up with every advance in every therapeutic area.
If any docs on this board have made it this far, I'd be interested in what you have to say. Urche? Xrymed? Dewophile?
