Marketing Cancer Drugs To Physicians Increases Prescribing Without Improving Mortality

Abstract of a paper on National Bureau of Economic Research: Physicians commonly receive marketing-related transfers from drug firms. We examine the impact of these relationships on the prescribing of physician-administered cancer drugs in Medicare. We find that prescribing of the associated drug increases 4\% in the twelve months after a payment is received, with the increase beginning sharply in the month of payment and fading out within a year. A marketing payment also leads physicians to begin treating cancer patients with lower expected mortality. While payments result in greater expenditure on cancer drugs, there are no associated improvements in patient mortality.

Love & Other Drugs

[bill_mcgonigle]

Good flick if you want to get a feel for how Pharma sales work.

I'm surprised it hasn't be Pfbanned yet based on who it highlights.

Just more medical industry corruption

[mspohr]

In the name of "free enterprise" the US has created the most corrupt medical industry in the world.
We have the lowest health indicators of the 20 most "developed" countries while spending two to three times as much on medical care which doesn't even cover all of our population.
The medical industry is getting rich and we are all paying the price in $ and poor health. Insurance companies, pharma, hospitals, doctors, medical device makers are all making huge profits at our expense.

Re:

[alvinrod]

Most of our poor health is entirely our own fault. Too many people have terrible diets, lead sedentary life styles, and consume one or more substances that are actively bad for our physical or mental well being. No healthcare system in the world would work for us because we're the problem and unless we can get a solution in pill form, we aren't interested. Look at the immense popularity of a drug like Ozempic.

There's also the other side of the coin in that it's unsurprising that the US spends more money

Re:Just more medical industry corruption

[mspohr]

Yes, we have been sold a diet of unhealthy food. Our "free enterprise" system has no effective controls on unhealthy food. But that is only part of the problem. Don't blame people for problems that corporations cause.

Our "best" medical system is only available to the rich. Everyone else suffers and that's why we have the worst health indicators of "rich" countries.

(Actually, Medicare is great! It controls costs and gives eligible people good access to care. Unfortunately, it is branded as "socialized medicine"by Republicans who are trying to kill it. I am old and have Medicare. I recently had a health "episode". Greedy hospital billed me $200,154. Medicare said no way and paid them $38,000. I didn't pay anything beyond my monthly insurance cost. We need Medicare for everybody.)

Re:

[smooth wombat]

Don't blame people for problems that corporations cause.

How is it a "corporate" cause if people are too lazy to move around, stare at their 3 inch screen all day, eat bags of chips each day, don't bother to drink water, and don't make healthy lifestyle choices? Does personal responsiblity not enter into the equation?

Re:

[mspohr]

Corporations don't give people a choice. They make money by having people stare at their screens all day and eating unhealthy food.
How about "corporate responsibility"?

Re:

[Kokuyo]

You both seem to be having tunnel vision.

Re:

[codebase7]

"Personal Responsibility" == "That sounds like a fuck you problem."

One or two people having issues? Yeah, that can be an issue of poor choices. Millions of people having the same issue across the country? That's systemic, a problem with the system itself. You can bitch all you want, but no amount of "personal responsibility" is going to fix a systemic issue.

In this case, whining about laziness isn't going to fix the bag of chips being cheaper than a proper fucking meal. It's not going to fix the shitty

Re:

[alvinrod]

Corporations can't sell people a product they don't want. If they're making crappy pulped meat nuggets sprinkled with sugar it's because that's what people are buying. That absolute garbage isn't even cheaper than real food unless you're making money while sitting on the couch waiting for the microwave to beep instead of cooking for yourself.

Your own anecdote shows why we need a free market in healthcare. Hospitals bill that much because they only deal with insurance companies or government insurance. Le

Re:

[sjames]

If the only food like substance within your budget (including time budget) is pulped meat nuggets sprinkled with sugar, guess what's for dinner?

Re:

[alvinrod]

People like to think that's less expensive, but it isn't. Have you looked at the price of soda and potato chips recently? I think the junk food companies have realized that they have addicts for customers and can price accordingly. Over half of the problem is foodstuffs (and I use the term lightly) that are scarcely more than processed sugars attached to some refined carbohydrates. No one needs any of that, but it's a multi-billion dollar industry.

Meanwhile you can buy some real beef, potatoes, onions, c

Re:

[sjames]

Personally, I don't do much processed food or fast food. But I also don't have kids and I work from home, so it's no bug deal to cook proper food.

I do find it odd how many adults out there never even learned basic cooking from their parents, or food network. I won't say the whole society is going down but there are subcultures that seem destined to die off.

But there is a reason I included time budget. While cooking proper food need not take a very long time, it generally takes more than nuking something.

ftfy

[Dr. Tom]

Marketing anything by giving away free samples does not correlate with successful outcomes.

Re:

[Dr. Tom]

In case it's not clear. Free samples are free. When you go to the Dr and say, "I need an antidepressant," they will reach into a drawer and pull out a bag of free pills, and say, "try this for three weeks and see if it helps" (and in the Dr's mind, they think, "I hope you don't suffer brain damage because of this, but I won't be liable.")

Define successful

[Somervillain]

Marketing anything by giving away free samples does not correlate with successful outcomes.

The shareholders are quite pleased with the outcomes :)

Bad Title

[eMODGod2]

We won't "reduce" mortality not 'improve' it!

Re:

[rossdee]

I presumed that improving mortality is where you feel good, but you still die...

End bribery

[Tablizer]

Wining and dining with vendors should be prohibited unless you pay for your own meal.

Makes sense

[MpVpRb]

Big increase in prescribing at first to see what happens
Big drop after as doctors see the lack of results

Mortality is not the only metric

[iAmWaySmarterThanYou]

I would like to see a quality of life metric, too.

Someone may still die at more or less the same time but did the drugs make their remaining time less shitty? I don't know but I'd like to know if that's what's going on.

I've been in a position where "sometimes dead is better" and if there was some drug that would have alleviated symptoms but I'd still die at the same moment I would've taken them without a second thought. I found a not-mediation way to recover but if not then dying well would have been bett

Re:

[sjames]

OTOH, some cancer drugs give the choice of 9 shitty months with or 6 decent months then one bad month without.

hohum nothing new

[groobly]

For decades and decades, studies show that the main effect of marketing any drug to physicians makes money for drug companies but does not much help patients.

Cancer Centers of America

[LazarusQLong]

that organisation has no higher survival rates than any good hospital does, but they market directly to cancer patients/families and thus make a lot of money off of dying people... Many cancer treatments are advertised in the US to regular people.... but if you can catch the fine print at the bottom of the advert, tend to claim only a small increase, if any, over normal cancer care at your nearest good hospital. It is disgusting that our congressweasels allow drug companies to market to patients, as if pati

Re:

[pz]

but if you can catch the fine print at the bottom of the advert, tend to claim only a small increase, if any, over normal cancer care at your nearest good hospital.

1. Many cancers are life-threatening illnesses. Wouldn't you prefer a 62% chance of survival over a 60% chance?

2. A fair chunk of the US population does not have a "nearest good hospital".

Re:

[LazarusQLong]

as I stated in the original comment, "if you can catch the fine print at the bottom of the advert, tend to claim only a small increase, if any," If any implioes that they claim NO increase in the fine print, but scream loudly in the ad about how successful they are.

Wouldn't you prefer to have ethical, honest doctors as opposed to ones who feel the need to lie to their patients to get more patients?

My cousin died of a cancer that was 94% survivable, according to her doctors who made every mistake they co

Re:

[pz]

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. Many years ago, my then-fiancee went to a cancer center and lives to this day after being treated there; at the time they had better survivability rates than anywhere else in the US for the cancer she had. And, underscoring the "nearest good hospital" issue was my dad who was treated at his regional hospital by people who should have their licenses revoked; he died because of their negligence.

When it comes down to it, for any serious medical issue, you want to be treat

100% dead

[zlives]

the placebos are working as intended.

waaaaait a second

[pz]

A marketing payment also leads physicians to begin treating cancer patients with lower expected mortality. While payments result in greater expenditure on cancer drugs, there are no associated improvements in patient mortality.

So patients with poorer expected outcomes begin to be more likely to be treated after marketing payment, and yet there is no overall decline in mortality as would be expected? In other words, the treated population skews toward worse cases, and yet the success rate does not drop?

You mean ---- gasp ---- the drugs work?

In what way is this not "water is wet"?

[ElimGarak000]

I mean, honestly?

How TF is this still happening

[vladoshi]

How?

\o/

[easyTree]

I suppose things could be worse as the drug company is incentivized to decrease positive health outcomes and thus increase the pool of potential users.