Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Review

Assumptions kill

Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (609): 213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X665440
Saul Miller
Belford, Northumberland.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading


Embedded Image

It is some years since I last received so much as a branded pen. I have even had to resort to buying the things. Still I am retraining myself, though: it remains a challenge to keep hold of the same worthless ballpoint all through my working day. Big pharma is changing. Their once bountiful supplies of freebies have dried up.

Now those who peddled the freebies, the reps, are being culled too. They, like black rhino, find their territories gradually increasing to a point where one may never meet another of the same breed in a lifetime of wandering the landscape. Extinction beckons.

Why is this? Does nobody consider me worthy of a sales pitch any more?

No? Of course not! With the rise of the formulary committee, of NICE, of prescriber management, I have become a pen-pusher, a trifle, a twig on the tree, a cog in the machine. It is others who need to be pursued and persuaded nowadays. I only need to be managed to ensure I understand what those others want of me. The drugs market is changing and big pharma with it. They are concentrating on chasing this diminishing band of decision makers in our ever more centralised system of health care.

But these decision makers cannot be persuaded on the basis of a free pen, nor even a tastefully branded clock or paperweight. Mostly. They want to be able to sanctify their decisions by the gods of science and economics. They feed off research papers and a good price.

Herds of sales representatives are no longer needed but don’t be fooled. As big pharma reconfigures, what still remains key is how they sell in this new world. The World Health Organization notes companies currently spend about one-third of all sales revenue on marketing and that this is roughly twice what they spend on research and development.1

Adept at redefining health care itself, they are as interested in finding ways to sell what they make as to make medicines for which there is a need: even in the UK, promotional spending by drug companies is 50 times greater than spending on public information on health.1 Their research is skewed towards these ends.2 As commercial companies, profit overrides the purity of any quest for improved human health.

For most of us, there is no surprise here. Nor do we expect there is a perfect alternative waiting in the wings. But there is the potential that there is a better way. The prevailing assumptions may just be wrong.

What are these assumptions?

Well, for a start there is the idea that big is best. The ten biggest drug companies in the world account for over one-third of the market.1 Is this healthy?

A second is that centralised formulary decision making is better. To challenge this is not automatically to demand a return to the principle of ‘the clinician always knows best’. Formularies are good, but not flawless. The current system pushes the use of medicines whose provenance may have been manipulated. Roche has made billions of dollars from persuading governments and medicine agencies of the benefits of Tamiflu®, yet its refusal to publish its full research evidence on the drug could be taken as a case in point.3

A third is the belief in market forces. These work well when it comes to cheap ballpoints. But I know for sure that I and the black rhino doubt its universal virtue.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    Pharmaceutical industry, http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/index.html (accessed 1 Mar 2013).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lundh A,
    2. Sismondo S,
    3. Lexchin J,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:MR000033.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Godlee F
    (2012) Clinical trial data for all drugs in current use. BMJ 345:e7304.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (609)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 609
April 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assumptions kill
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Assumptions kill
Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (609): 213. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X665440

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Assumptions kill
Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (609): 213. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X665440
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Tick. Tick. Tick ....
  • Made to measure?
  • Iain Bamforth
Show more The Review

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242