JAMA & ARCHIVES
Arch Fam Med
SEARCH
GO TO ADVANCED SEARCH
HOME  PAST ISSUES  TOPIC COLLECTIONS  CME  PHYSICIAN JOBS  CONTACT US  HELP
Institution: CLOCKSS  | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In
  Vol. 3 No. 12, December 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
 • Online Features
  Letters to the Editor
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Pharmaceutical Marketing

Rob Scott Thompson, DO, MS
United Health Services Hospitals Johnson City, NY

Arch Fam Med. 1994;3(12):1031-1032.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

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]






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1994 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.

DCSIMG