University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cracks Down On Drug Reps

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is cracking down on drug reps, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Details are still sketchy, but the general idea is that drug reps will no longer have direct access to doctors, but will instead drop off samples via a central office that will then distribute them to the staff.

The goal of the new policy (which will affect 50,000 people) is to “remove the relationship between company representatives and prescribers,” Dr. Barbara Barnes, associate dean for continuing medical education at the Pitt School of Medicine, told the Post-Gazette.

The university will also be taking a look at pharma-sponsored scholarships as well as the fees that doctors collect for speaking at various industry events. It’s encouraging to see institutions addressing the conflict of interest between big pharma and those prescribing its products. Good for them.

Pittsburgh Medical Center to Restrict Drug Reps
[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via WSJ Health Blog]
(Photo:Getty)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. BigNutty says:

    And doctor’s should not be able to talk to a drug rep. so they can inform them about the drug they are pushing? I would rather a doctor know everything about the drug, even from the rep. before he decides to prescribe it.

    They might as well just tell the drug companies to mail in the sample and info.

    I’m pro consumer all the way but not all ideas that look good for consumers really benefit us.

    My doctor has a time set aside for the drug reps. to discuss the drug they are pushing. Does he get kickbacks? Who knows for sure, but I do know he would not prescribe anything that he has not been thoroughly informed about.

    This idea has the attitude that everyone is guilty until proved innocent.

  2. Xkeeper says:

    @BigNutty: The idea is that they should be informed by actual medical writing and not a rep.

    That, and reps can always offer, uh… bonuses to doctors. This cuts that possibility out.

  3. Gastromancer says:

    @BigNutty: You might wish to read some of the articles in recent years in places such as the NYT: pharma reps aren’t knowledgeable –they’re -salesmen-, and as you’d find in aforementioned articles, Pharma recruit them not for their intelligence or knowledge, but for their looks and selling ability. Specifically mentioned are former college cheerleader types. So, um, yeah, us poor consumers probably want our doctors to -not- be talking to them much.

    That doesn’t even -begin- to address all the other issues in pharma companies’ inappropriate relationships with doctors, but at least it’s a start.

  4. trollkiller says:

    It may keep the unethical doctors from being tainted by the “evil” pharma reps, but it will also keep the ethical doctors from working with the reps to get the samples that the poorer paitents need.

    I know when I could not afford a couple of meds my doctor gave me enough samples to cover my need for one med and worked with his pharma rep to get my paperwork pushed through for the other med at a greatly reduced cost.

  5. FLConsumer says:

    @BigNutty: If the reps had any actual medical knowledge, then maybe…but they don’t. They’re usually blonde bimbos recently out of college, usually with marketing or communications degrees. You know, the real brainiacs of the campus. I’ve watched a few surgeons feed the rep a line of bullshit and she bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

    As an aside, what are the doctors and staff going to do for food now?!?! If I wanted to, I wouldn’t have to ever spend a single cent on weekday lunches. At one hospital, I spent a month following my nose and enjoyed the drug rep lunches. For a whole month. I figured if I can do it for a month, I can probably do it forever. Overall, it was an interesting experience. I just couldn’t stomach the idea of the patients having to pay for it and after a month of this my conscious got the better of me. Oh well, at least I’ve learned about a whole bunch of good restaurants.

  6. RvLeshrac says:

    @trollkiller:

    This is sort of the point. After working with the rep that closely, it starts becoming a quid pro quo issue. Eventually, even a good doctor may start prescribing drugs that, while they might help a patient, may not be necessary. One of the biggest problems facing modern medicine is overprescription.

    @BigNutty:

    Where doctors are concerned, they *are* guilty until proven innocent – not because there are more unethical doctors or the like, but because there’s an extraordinary amount of responsibility. This is why hospitals don’t allow physicians to practice while under investigation for malpractice, same reason police officers are placed on administrative leave following an officer-involved shooting.

    Claims made may be baseless, but it ensures that they think carefully about their actions. This simply takes that a step further, and removes the source of many unethical medical decisions. It has no negative effects because, as previously mentioned, any decent physician is getting his or her information from research, NOT the people whose job it is to sell as much of the drugs as possible.

  7. kmwriter says:

    My personal physician lives for the thrill of seeing the attractive young drug reps visit during his lunch hour. That’s why my 2PM appointments usually get started around 2:20.

  8. Hambriq says:

    @FLConsumer: If the reps had any actual medical knowledge, then maybe…but they don’t. They’re usually blonde bimbos recently out of college, usually with marketing or communications degrees. You know, the real brainiacs of the campus. I’ve watched a few surgeons feed the rep a line of bullshit and she bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

    *rolls eyes* Do you also think that all janitors are shifty Mexicans who sleep on the job? Or that all bankers are covetous Jews hell bent on controlling the free world? Or that all DMV workers are surly African Americans who want nothing more than to stick it to the white man? Your characterization is laughable at best, but really it’s just offensive.

    Sure, there are some reps whose sole purpose is to push unnecessary drugs. But there are bad apples in every profession, just like there are Dr. Feelgoods who will prescribe Vicodin to any patient who has an ache. Does this mean we should no longer allow patients to see doctors? After all, overprescription is a huge problem. Of course not. So why should we do the same with drug reps?

    In most cases, drug reps are valuable sources of information. Working in a pharmacy, I for one welcome the presence of drug reps because it gives me the opportunity to get the answers to a lot of questions that may not be readily available in medical literature. Does this mean I take their word for gospel? Of course not. And neither would any good doctor. I make recommendations based on a combination of the best possible information available, and information from drug reps is one of those sources. It is only one source, and not the sole determinant, but it is a valuable source nonetheless. I imagine any good doctor would do the same.

    I recognize that over-prescribing medicine is a major problem in the country, but distancing pharmaceutical sales reps will do very little to help the problem, and at the cost of a very important source of information about medicines.

  9. bohemian says:

    Drug reps have zero related experience. Most are hired for their ability to do a sales pitch and polished look. Most of the clinics around here have not bought office supplies in the last five years. Pens, clipboards, paper, kleenex, stethescopes you name it. That really makes you wonder about impartiality when you add in the kickbacks and that drug companies track and pressure doctors to prescribe.

    I started carrying a copy of the $4 drug list to doctor appointments. If they want to prescribe something I ask if there is anything on that list that would do an equal job.

  10. SuperSally says:

    I, for one, am thankful my doc makes time for drug reps. When my husband lost his job and we were uninsured it was free samples from the doctors office that made us able to go to the doctor and not starve that week. I can still walk in for a physical and walk out with hundred of dollars in asthma meds–meds that he would’ve prescribed if it didn’t cost me $150.00 for a month–and that’s with insurance. Not to mention the free samples of Kytril and other wickedly expensive anti emetics for cancer patients. I’m sure some docs and reps have a hard time walking the line of propriety, but a lot don’t. So for those docs out there, let’s keep the free meds coming.

  11. Hambriq says:

    @RvLeshrac: Eventually, even a good doctor may start prescribing drugs that, while they might help a patient, may not be necessary. One of the biggest problems facing modern medicine is overprescription.

    I agree with this, but I think it’s an oversimplication. It 9 cases out of 10, newer medicines are more effective and have fewer side effects than older medicines. You would find very few medical professionals who, if everything cost exactly the same, would not prescribe Crestor or Lipitor over an older statin like Simvastatin.

    And therein lies the problem. On the patient’s end, everything does cost the same, for the most part. The actual cost to the industry may be vastly different, but for many of them, the copays are exactly the same or similar. And if that is the case, you have an ethical dilemma. Do you as a doctor knowingly prescribe one medicine that is proven to be less effective than the alternative, in the interest of saving the industry money?

    Consider it from a consumer end as well. Why would you as a patient want a less effective drug when the copay is the exact same as a drug that is more effective? If you were at an electronics store and could purchase a 50″ TV for $2,500 with a $500 rebate, or a 45″ TV for $2,000, which would you buy?

  12. Honus says:

    Over-prescription isn’t caused by drug reps as much as an ongoing cycle between patient demand and the perception that a doctor not writing a script for a visit isn’t doing his job, and the doctors who play into that belief.

    It’s self maintaining and difficult to break, but it has little to do with big pharma.

  13. yoni says:

    P-I-T-T
    PITT PITT PITT!

  14. FLConsumer says:

    @Hambriq: I spent one entire month, listening to their schpeal every single day of the week during that time. Out of the 25+ days I spent doing this, I didn’t come across any rep with actual clinical experience/education. NONE. Not even an elementary “clinical chemistry” course. I think it’s safe to say the majority of them hadn’t even set foot in an organic chemistry classroom. They’re salesholes, pure and simple. I don’t doubt that they mean well, but that’s no substitute for knowledge.

    @supersally: Why do you think drugs are $150? It costs money to do all of this marketing. I don’t have any good figures on pharma’s overall advertising costs, but just their direct-to-consumer marketing (doesn’t include the drug rep salesholes, pens, dr’s office lunches, trips to exotic locations, etc.) ran $5B last year. Yes, 5 BILLION dollars. Let me remind you that the US is one of only a few countries which allows such practices. I believe it’s banned in the whole EU. Who paid for this $5B? We all did. I’m not even willing to throw a guess at how much the total advertising expenditures were for pharma once you add in marketing to medical staff.

  15. GreatMoose says:

    @FLConsumer:

    That’s funny. My father-in-law has been a drug-rep for nearly 30 years, and is as knowledgable as they come. The man studies ALL THE TIME. They have to take tests on the drugs they sell constantly, and if the don’t get like a 90% or better (if I recall correctly) they stand a very good chance of losing thier job. Having said that, there ARE reps that are just hired for thier looks, but most of them HAVE to be knowledgable or they have to start looking for another job.

  16. Hambriq says:

    @FLConsumer: I spent one entire month, listening to their schpeal every single day of the week during that time. Out of the 25+ days I spent doing this, I didn’t come across any rep with actual clinical experience/education. NONE. Not even an elementary “clinical chemistry” course. I think it’s safe to say the majority of them hadn’t even set foot in an organic chemistry classroom. They’re salesholes, pure and simple. I don’t doubt that they mean well, but that’s no substitute for knowledge.

    Imagine if you took the gist of what you said, but made the focus of your argument African Americans instead of pharmaceutical sales representatives. And then you used that argument to back up a policy decision discriminating against African Americans. You would probably get crucified.

    Your limited exposure to pharma reps doesn’t make your argument any more or less valid. It’s a stereotype and doesn’t have any place in a discussion like this. I’m not saying that stereotypes don’t have their basis in truth. There certainly are a large number of sales reps that possess the intelligence of a turnip. And making generalizations based on these stereotypes on an online blog is relatively benign. But when you try to make policy based on those stereotypes, that’s what I have a problem with.

  17. FLConsumer says:

    @GreatMoose: What clinical background does he have?

  18. Hambriq says:

    @FLConsumer:
    @GreatMoose:

    This is exactly the reason why FLConsumer’s point doesn’t have a place in this discussion. For every example of an ineffective “saleshole” sales representative, someone else can provide an example of an outstanding representative who is a walking dictionary of medical knowledge. And where would we get at the end of the day? Nowhere.

  19. FLConsumer says:

    @Hambriq: I’d say seeing 40-50 drug reps is a decent cross sample. I’m not making policy, just observations. I’d say it has total place in a discussion such as this. It’s real world observations. Like it or not, this is what I saw. The reps didn’t have the background that I was expecting them to. I’m not expecting to have them be doctors or pharmacists or organic chemists, but at least some background in the study of chemistry/biology/medicine, even if it is provided by the pharmaceutical co’s.

    Call me old fashioned, but I still prefer to get my information from the medical journals and other doctors rather than a PR person. I’m not an early adopter and don’t see my patients as guinea pigs. The drug recalls of the past few years should serve as a warning as to what happens when you just listen to the company PR reps and don’t do your own research into what the various studies have shown. There’s still a few drugs on the market now which I’d never write a script for due to safety concerns, but for some reason are still on the market. And the drug reps for those particular companies are still pushing them, glossing over the side effects.

  20. Hambriq says:

    @FLConsumer: I’m not making policy, just observations.

    However, University of Pittsburgh IS making policy. Real world observations certainly have a place in discussions such as these, as long as they have a purpose. Stereotyping does not serve a purpose. See my earlier comment about for every ineffective rep you encounter, someone else can easily bring up an example of an effective one.

    What I would rather see is a real world observation of cause and effect. Now, if you have seen doctors knowingly write scripts for subpar or unnecessary medications based solely on the influence of a sales representative, that would be one thing. But stereotyping all drug reps as “bimbos” serves little to no purpose in this discussion.

    There’s still a few drugs on the market now which I’d never write a script for due to safety concerns, but for some reason are still on the market. And the drug reps for those particular companies are still pushing them, glossing over the side effects.

    Just because I’m curious, which medicines are you referring to?

  21. Trai_Dep says:

    @Hambriq: …and imagine if the focus was Satanic pedophiliac bridge-crashing cargo ship captains trolling the SF Bay instead of bubble-headed Big Pharma sales reps. Imagine the outrage.

    Unfortunately, he only was talking about Big Pharma sales reps having a stronger sales background (and large mammories) than backgrounds emphasizing patient wellness. Darn. Guess FLConsumer’s point is still valid.

  22. morganlh85 says:

    @Gastromancer: @BigNutty: EXACTLY. Drug reps are NOT medical professionals. They are marketing specialists. So the doctor isn’t going to learn anything from them other than how great the rep thinks their drug is. And how many free clipboards and other doodads they are going to get in return for pushing their drug, which might in fact be substandard.

  23. Crotty says:

    Hambriq, if you’re getting your information from medical journals, you are still getting it from Pharma companies. They are they ones who pay for the clinical trials, they hire medical writers to ghostwrite review papers that are “authored” by luminaries in the field who benefit from the publication and who go on speaking and advising gigs. And the peer reviewed journals compete to publish the big trials. You’re niave if you think information in medical journals is unbiased and that Pharma companies don’t have a lot of say about the cut of the data you see, and before that, the study design itself (which is crucial). VIGOR, in NEJM, the big Vioxx study, could certainly have included a lot more MI data. It was there, but it didn’t make it to publication for a variety of reasons. Even registry data is often sponsored. At least with a rep, it is clear they have a bias– you can talk to the rep for the competing product and get the other side, consider the Associaition-based guidelines, read the FDA approved PI, and then, as a trained clinician, make an appropriate judgement about what to prescribe each patient. Don’t complain that someone bought you a pizza. There is pizza buying in many industries.

  24. Trai_Dep says:

    @Hambriq: “Which medicines are you referring to?”

    Big Pharma is tainted. Merck had to pay a $5 billion-dollar Vioxx penalty. Ambien still continues to turn its users into sleepwalking (driving, sexing, eating…) zombies with no memory. Drugs that are needed yet don’t provide a 1,000% markup (malaria or flu vaccines, anyone?) aren’t funded. And apropos of this, BoingBoing has a story on how the drug used for Restless Leg Syndrome (wildly over-diagnosed due to consumer ads)… Well, I’ll simply quote:

    Drugs originally developed to treat Parkinson’s disease could provide meaningful help to people who suffered from moderate to severe forms of [RLS]. But the drugs have serious side effects – one of the more bizarre involves a propensity for uncontrolled sexual or gambling impulses… While these medications may provide relief to some RLS patients, the ads could leave anyone who ever suffered fidgetiness when trying to go to sleep to wonder whether he or she has RLS and should seek treatment.

    I hope all hospital groups follow this practice. If there are medicines that are worth it, the studies will speak for themselves. The reps’ expertise – selling – only muddies the waters in this regard.

  25. Crotty says:

    @trai_dep: It sounds like you are making a case against consumer advertising, which is different that limiting docs access to reps. The consumer advertising is actually a way of getting around the problem (for the Pharma companies) of not having access. Patients ask about RLS or insomnia and want a product. Docs, maybe, should learn to say no to patients, or god forbid suggest to some patients with insomina that they make lifestyle changes.

    Do you want more medical research funded with tax dollars?

    Or maybe better education generally — the RLS commericals are unpersuasive (and hiliarious) for people with any sort of developed critical thinking skills.

  26. Trai_Dep says:

    Not quite. It’s all part of a un-virtuous cycle of selling medicines as though they were popcycles instead of medicine. Create artificial demand thru consumer ads, unleash a salesforce to wear down doctors’ resistance, sit back as sales skyrocket. Not based on need, but on sizzle – all part of an integrated whole.

    It’s bad policy and should be smashed.

  27. Crotty says:

    @trai_dep: OK, but how do you legislate or create a more virtuous policy? Virtue is kind of hard to pin down. The fact is, the US Pharma industry is a lot more regulated than other developed and undeveloped places. Reps cannot speak about off lable indications, no matter how good looking they are, and the companies do police this because they are terrified of being sued. And the fact is that we do in fact benefit from many of its products and devices. The Statins do add years to many people’s lives, statistically. Total hip replacement means a lot of people can walk around who would have been stuck in chairs just a few decades ago. So who is going to pay for research? And a lot of these things are paid for by insurance — I don’t see those very rich insurance CEOs as particularly virtuous either, or many of the lawyers suing Merk on behalf of patients who took Vioxx for a month or two and had a heart attack quite possibly much more related to their own lifetstyle choices than this drug. And the Vioxx class of agents are a decent substitute for aspririn and other generics that cause ulcers in a lot of people. Aspirin might not be approved by the FDA today for this reason.

  28. Benstein says:

    I agree with this decision by Pitt, and I hope other major hospitals do the same. As an engineer working for the government, I was not allowed to accept ANYTHING from the vendors. Not a meal, not a pen, nothing. This was so I wouldn’t recommend one vendor’s design over another. In other words, this rule was made so the government got a fair assessment of the best vendor proposal. This situation is LIFE AND DEATH. A doctor has a vastly more important job than a government engineer, and should be held to even higher ethical standards.

  29. Pfluffy says:

    I like that my doctor can give me medicine that I may not be able to afford. On the other hand, my doctor gave me “free samples” from a drug rep. Those samples were old were recalled nine months prior. Since I didn’t get them from the pharmacy, my pharmacist could have detected the potential FATAL drug interaction that my doctor missed. I kept telling everyone in my doctor’s office all the medicines and suppliments I was already taking at least three times before I got the deadly drug samples. I almost died when I took the medication.

    Doctors should learn what new medicines can be helpful, but I’m not willing to sit while suffering in a waiting room until the drug rep is done flirting with my doctor just to distribute insomnia medication.

    Let the doctors deal with their patients, and let their office managers or admin deal with the drug reps. No doctor should distribute any sample without knowing all potential drug interactions. I did learn that no matter where the medication comes from, consult your PHARMACIST EVERY time!

    Doctors and drug reps are playing with people’s lives. It’s not a joke or harmless encounter.

  30. Hambriq says:

    @trai_dep: …and imagine if the focus was Satanic pedophiliac bridge-crashing cargo ship captains trolling the SF Bay instead of bubble-headed Big Pharma sales reps. Imagine the outrage.

    Right. Even though you never actually got around to addressing the point of my analogy, can I go ahead and give you the thumbs up for talking about Satanic pedophiles? Did you get it out of your system? Do you need another go around before you can actually start talking about something substantive? Or can we move on to your next post?

    Big Pharma is tainted. Merck had to pay a $5 billion-dollar Vioxx penalty. Ambien still continues to turn its users into sleepwalking (driving, sexing, eating…) zombies with no memory. Drugs that are needed yet don’t provide a 1,000% markup (malaria or flu vaccines, anyone?) aren’t funded. And apropos of this, BoingBoing has a story on how the drug used for Restless Leg Syndrome (wildly over-diagnosed due to consumer ads)… Well, I’ll simply quote:

    Okay. So you gave me one example. Ambien. Oh, and two paragraphs of fluff. Apparently your knowledge of medical issues comes from regular watchings of 20/20 and The Consumerist.

    If any real medical professional would like to give me their opinions on drugs that they believe are dangerous or unnecessary and yet still prescribed, I would love to hear it so we can have an intelligent conversation about them, rather than a rhetoric laden mud-slinging fest.

  31. Hambriq says:

    @crotty: Hambriq, if you’re getting your information from medical journals, you are still getting it from Pharma companies…. You’re niave [sic] if you think information in medical journals is unbiased and that Pharma companies don’t have a lot of say about the cut of the data you see, and before that, the study design itself (which is crucial)….Don’t complain that someone bought you a pizza. There is pizza buying in many industries.

    Are you sure you read my post? What you are saying is true, I have never said anything indicating that I might disagree with it, and I haven’t been complaining about the “pizza-buying”. If anything, I’m defending it.

    Where’s the argument, here?

  32. That70sHeidi says:

    As someone ACTUALLY affected by this change (I use UPMC) I’m happy for this. It’s frustrating seeing these people in and out all day long while I sit and wait and wait and wait. And it’s not like the nurses don’t have anything to do but stand and chat with them either. Find my file, figure out why you don’t have all the information, and for god’s sakes answer the damn phones!

  33. trollkiller says:

    @Hambriq:
    FLConsumer does have a valid point in this discussion. It is true that Pharma reps are hired because they look good. I used to deliver samples to the Pharma reps, I loved it because the time I would deliver the samples was just about the time they were getting ready for work. (I am getting older but ain’t dead yet) ;-)

    The fact that a Pharma rep is hot does not change the fact that a good doctor will not be swayed by long legs and a short skirt. Good doctors will prescribe only what is needed for the betterment of the patient. Good doctors will work with the rep to get samples his/her patients need.

    Unethical doctors will prescribe based on kickbacks, defraud insurance and medicare/medicade, and will prescribe unneeded feel good meds to keep the patient coming back.

    What Pitt did looks noble and is great PR, nothing more. If you are afraid your doctors can’t be ethical, fire them.

    As for the patients, they need to learn to be good consumers. Even good doctors can make mistakes. You should NEVER NEVER NEVER take a med that you do not understand what it does, how it does it, and what the side effects can be. Your doctor has 100s if not 1000s of patients. You only have 1.

    If your doctor does not like you questioning them, fire them and find a good doctor.

  34. Hambriq says:

    @trollkiller:
    FLConsumer does have a valid point in this discussion. It is true that Pharma reps are hired because they look good.

    First of all, that’s not all that he said. Second of all, I still don’t see how that is relevant to the discussion. “All of the sales representatives I met were as dumb as a post.” Great. Why should we care? Furthermore, how is that a valid defense of this decision by Pitt? The only thing it contributes to the discussion is encouraging other people to come up with examples of their own anecdotes about how all the reps THEY’VE met are brilliant.

    Let me summarize for emphasis: Anecdotes, stereotypes, and other baseless, subjective methods of judgment have no place in a logical discussion. If we’re sitting around shooting the shit, then tell all the stories you want. But as soon as you try to use them as part of your or someone else’s argument, that’s when you get called out.

    Anyway, besides that, I agree with you. What you said here basically sums up how I think about the issue: “The fact that a Pharma rep is hot does not change the fact that a good doctor will not be swayed by long legs and a short skirt. …What Pitt did looks noble and is great PR, nothing more. If you are afraid your doctors can’t be ethical, fire them.

  35. Hambriq says:

    @trollkiller: Ugh. Consumerist ate my post. I don’t want to retype it, so I’ll summarize: FLConsumer’s stereotypical view of a pharma rep is far too subjective to be used as a basis for, or in defense of an argument. Anyone else could just as easily claim that every rep they’ve encountered has been brilliant and helpful, and neither party would be able to discredit the other.

    Other than that, I agree with what you said about ethical doctors not being swayed by things like this, and if you fear your doctors are unethical, don’t fire the reps, fire the doctors.

  36. shanaynay says:

    Ex-medical-group staff here. Never saw a drug rep who wasn’t a pretty bubblehead. Is Hambriq, perchance, an ex-pharm rep?

  37. meeroom says:

    I think Hambriq’s throwing out the stereotyping comment and comparing calling pharma reps bimbos to stereotyping African Americans is totally triflin’.
    4 out of 5 dentists agree: chew Trident, and pharma reps are usually hot. Stereotype, Schmereotype. Stereotypes exist because lots of times they are rooted in reality, pal.

  38. StevieD says:

    As anti-reps as I am, I also realize there is a special need for reps with an extremely strong working knowledge of their products.

    A classic example is knee replacements. I have several family members (mom, dad, uncle etc) that have had single and double knee replacements. Their Doctors are good, but their doctors are good at doing surgery not picking parts. My mom’s Doc admits that he consults the factory rep prior to surgery… better wearing designs, easier to upgrade designs, design that works better with arthritis or work better with overweight, active etc patients.

    My own Doc hands out samples of allergy meds. Try these and get back to me which works better for you. Obviously my results are the only concern, and there is no way the PDR, drug literature, or med school is going to predict the absolute best combination of drugs.

    Do I want Drug reps hanging out at the DR’s office? No. But I also understand the need for reps. There just need to be a middle ground.

  39. Hambriq says:

    @meeroom:
    @shanaynay:

    First things first: I see reps almost every day. I know stereotypes are rooted in truth. I’m not arguing the stereotype. If we were sitting out on a front porch just chatting about pharma reps, I would agree with you guys. But again. There’s a huge difference between identifying a stereotyping and then using it as the basis of an argument. I can’t stress it enough. So I’ll say it again. You cannot use a stereotype as the basis of an argument.