![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif) |
![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif) |
![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif)
Pharmaceutical Marketing
Rob Scott Thompson, DO, MS
United Health Services Hospitals Johnson City, NY
Arch Fam Med. 1994;3(12):1031-1032.
![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif) |
![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif) |
Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif) |
![](/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchfami.ama-assn.org%2Ficons%2Fspacer.gif) |
I enjoyed the triad of essentially pro-pharmaceutical articles1-3 in the April 1994 issue of the ARCHIVES and would like to expand on a few points. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers' Association have also published guidelines on perks to physicians from the drug industry. The bottom line is that all these guidelines are voluntary, and physicians have continued to vote "with their feet."1 I prefer the succinct opinion of The Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom who asked, "would you be willing to have these arrangements generally known?,"4 referring to any benefits a physician derived from a particular drug company.
Wind2 and Levy3 question the effect of cutting promotional costs on the price of pharmaceuticals. Schwartzman estimated that if all marketing expenditures were eliminated, the amount of savings that would eventually be
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
|