• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Unethical Marketing strategies in Cancer Pharma industries.

MikeAparicio

Unregistered
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
304
The big, billionaire Pharma Industry is using highly unethical marketing maneuvers to stimulate their sales and reach incredible proportions in profit collection.

To understand it better I invite readers to "google" a little bit trying to find the over-the-counter prices for most chemotherapy products. To my amazement I found Prescription Drug Stores, and Pharmaceutical distributors regularly DO NOT carry those products for sale by prescription!

Such products are offered DIRECTLY to doctors and oncologists by the Medical Representatives or visitors, providing price lists which can be "conveniently" raised or adjusted by the doctor upon prescribing a treatment.

It is not so difficult to understand such strategy is HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE for patients which are looking for a doctor to put his trust on him.

No doubt some good spirited oncologists will try to pass the savings (if any) to his patient but in most cases, the whole scam leads to create an extra income source for cancer clinics and hospitals.

Why this has to be done this way? Being cancer a major killer in the world, costs should be VERY conservative and efforts should be done to keep prices within patients reach.

It is said "most of those costs are paid by insurance agencies" actually being paid by either policy costs or by government usage of tax money.

But the moral aspect of this is highly controversial. Should MD doctors be subject to such corrupting pressure?

Should FDA regulate the final sales prices for all medicines?

Since I learned this I am very skeptical of the current ethics moving behind the Doctor-Parma relationships. :eek:

Article on the subject
 
Last edited:
Given that his last appearance was promoting woo under the guise of asking for "an unbiased discussion" of the theories underlying 'alternative' medicine, I can't say I'm surprised. Whatever 'Big Pharma' is doing, it's more ethical than fleecing the gullible and desperate of every last pound/dollar, and then blaming the mark when the 'cure' doesn't work.
 
This is a subject I am intimately familiar with, having spent several years handling drug purchases for a large oncology practice.

Such products are offered DIRECTLY to doctors and oncologists by the Medical Representatives or visitors, providing price lists which can be "conveniently" raised or adjusted by the doctor upon prescribing a treatment.

True but irrelevant. The fact is that 99 percent of all chemotherapy drugs are paid for by insurance, whether government (Medicare/Medicaid) or private. The insurance carriers dictate how much physicians are paid for the drugs. Doctors can bill whatever they want; they're only going to get what the insurance says they get. The difference has to be written off (assuming the doctor participates with the insurance carrier, which essentially all of them do).

It is not so difficult to understand such strategy is HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE for patients which are looking for a doctor to put his trust on him.

That's true. That's why the insurance company controls reimbursement, not the doctor.

It is said "most of those costs are paid by insurance agencies" actually being paid by either policy costs or by government usage of tax money.

It's actually, in most practices, about 60% private insurance and 40% public. Oncology practices in particular also write off huge amounts as charity if the patient is unable to pay (in the practice I was in, it was routinely in the mid-seven figures annually).

Should FDA regulate the final sales prices for all medicines?

The drug companies charge whatever they think they can get away with. I doubt their R&D and production costs justify the prices they charge, but it's what the market will bear. Physicians get very little markup, by the way. They get what's known as "ASP plus 6" from Medicare; that is, average sales price plus 6 percent. Most of the major insurance carriers use similar formulas with varying percentages. Blue Cross, for example, is typically ASP plus 8, as is Aetna. Cigna is comparatively generous; their reimbursement is typically around ASP plus 15.

Since I learned this I am very skeptical of the current ethics moving behind the Doctor-Parma relationships.

Your skepticism is misplaced. You should be skeptical of the pharmaceutical companies and their pricing.
 
Most chemotherapies have to be given under close doctor supervision, with careful monitoring of vitals, blood work, etc. Many are given by injection/infusion. Given so many of these drugs therefore have to be given in doctors' offices, it doesn't surprise me that they are provided by the doctor. Depending on the health insurance coverage, drugs provided by he doctor may be paid by the insurance whereas prescription drugs from pharmacies may need to be paid by the patient.

That said, many of the less dangerous drugs used in cancer treatment are available through pharmacies.
 
The OP has linked to a whackadoodle cancer "cure" site.

Mods: Please move to Conspiracy Theories.

False! The link contains several other links to articles on the subject. NOBODY IS TALKING OF NATURAL OR "ALTERNATIVE" treatments. That is another thread. Why don' t you ask moderators to ban me for telling the truth?
 
Why does a Guatemala resident care abt the US FDA ?

why do you care or recent I am from Guatemala? The Big Pharma strategies affects the WHOLE world. My people suffers even worst because of a much lower per capita income.
Do you think we have no right to speak and denounce?
Wait! you've heard nothing yet!
I don't really mind for the xenophobia exhibited in your post.
 
Given that his last appearance was promoting woo under the guise of asking for "an unbiased discussion" of the theories underlying 'alternative' medicine, I can't say I'm surprised. Whatever 'Big Pharma' is doing, it's more ethical than fleecing the gullible and desperate of every last pound/dollar, and then blaming the mark when the 'cure' doesn't work.

Your comparison is pure straw. The topic here is NOT Altmed or other threads.
There is no such concept as "more ethical or less ethical" . There is only Ethical or none.
I wonder why the truth hurts you so much...
 
False! The link contains several other links to articles on the subject. NOBODY IS TALKING OF NATURAL OR "ALTERNATIVE" treatments. That is another thread. Why don' t you ask moderators to ban me for telling the truth?

OK.

Mods: Please ban MikeAparicio for telling the....ummmmm...."truth". Also, please move the whole thread to Conspiracy Theories. It has nothing to do with Economics, Business or Finance.
 
Last edited:
Missing the point

The point is missed deliberately or plainly intentionally.
The unethical aspect resides in getting doctors to act as merchants, offer them bonuses, "cuts" or "incentives"
Can't you see that?
some explanations and justifications above are either naive or hypocritical.
The fact pervades and many reading this KNOW it is true no matter how much "discomfort" it causes.
 
Most chemotherapies have to be given under close doctor supervision, with careful monitoring of vitals, blood work, etc. Many are given by injection/infusion. Given so many of these drugs therefore have to be given in doctors' offices, it doesn't surprise me that they are provided by the doctor. Depending on the health insurance coverage, drugs provided by he doctor may be paid by the insurance whereas prescription drugs from pharmacies may need to be paid by the patient.

That said, many of the less dangerous drugs used in cancer treatment are available through pharmacies.

Hi Giordano!
 
The point is missed deliberately or plainly intentionally.
The unethical aspect resides in getting doctors to act as merchants, offer them bonuses, "cuts" or "incentives"
Can't you see that?
some explanations and justifications above are either naive or hypocritical.
The fact pervades and many reading this KNOW it is true no matter how much "discomfort" it causes.

It would be unethical if it could be shown that such payments were having a negative impact on patient outcomes. Instead, we have survival rates higher than ever before. Do you have any evidence that payments of incentives to doctors (which does occur) has any effect whatsoever on outcomes? All there is in the links you provided are things full of weasel words like "it seems likely".
 
Last edited:
In the UK Cancer Drugs have to be approved by NICE a Govt organization that tests all drugs before they are released for use by Doctors.
There have been instances of new drugs not being approved because of cost compared to outcome.
Cancer treatment in the UK is part of the National Health Service.
How does your conspiracy by 'Big Pharma' work in the UK?
 
How does your conspiracy by 'Big Pharma' work in the UK?


That's a problem common to pretty much all "Big Pharma" conspiracy theories. It applies to pretty much any country with a socialised medical system, which includes most of Europe (not just the UK) and places like Canada as well.
 
It would be unethical if it could be shown that such payments were having a negative impact on patient outcomes. Instead, we have survival rates higher than ever before. Do you have any evidence that payments of incentives to doctors (which does occur) has any effect whatsoever on outcomes? All there is in the links you provided are things full of weasel words like "it seems likely".

Incentives of ANY kind do have an outcome. Of course not on the unpredictable results of the treatment. They work a supposed: Marketing incentives... Is it possible to think Big Pharma would invest considerable amounts of their income into incentives if they would not PROMOTE sales?

No, no, no!

Then we must apply the abundant skeptic logic in this forums: How would sales be promoted, if doctors are getting the incentives?

Do I have to answer that, dear skeptics?
 
That's a problem common to pretty much all "Big Pharma" conspiracy theories. It applies to pretty much any country with a socialised (SIC) medical system, which includes most of Europe (not just the UK) and places like Canada as well.

Conspiracy "theories"?

There is no "conspiracy" here neither there are theories!

It is just: Marketing Strategies and plain facts!

In a sense we could accept the ("conspiracy theory") theory!

You are right theorizing it! The "Marketing Strategy" is actually a sales conspiracy, as any other marketing campaign....

But in this particular case: HIGHLY UNETHICAL!
 
Last edited:
In the UK Cancer Drugs have to be approved by NICE a Govt organization that tests all drugs before they are released for use by Doctors.
There have been instances of new drugs not being approved because of cost compared to outcome.
Cancer treatment in the UK is part of the National Health Service.
How does your conspiracy by 'Big Pharma' work in the UK?

It seems you missed the point. This has nothing to do with "drug approval".
About the outcome (financial outcome, please) if you are in England you can find out easier than me. Just ask your doctor!

But I don't think doctors would be getting "incentives" (commissions) if sales would NOT pick up. Remember: This is a Marketing Strategy!!!
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom