A refreshing view regarding drug reps

We've all heard/read the stories of how sales reps for pharmaceutical drugs go to doctor's offices and give them freebies (and we're not talking about the free samples of the drugs they're promoting).

One doctor (the author of the Wall Street Journal article "Fewer Freebies, More Patient Time Since Doctor Said No to Drug Reps") decided against seeing drug reps "in an effort to simplify [his] professional life, streamline [his] daily workflow and spend more time seeing patients" (more patients = more revenue). Whatever his reasons, more doctors should perhaps follow suit.

All doctors complain about being pressured to spend more time with patients--- time they don't have. However, some of these doctors are also setting time aside for these drug reps. Now, we understand all doctors are not the same --- a doctor with a family practice (such as the doctor in the article) has different responsibilities (and time constraints) as say, an ophthalmologist. However, perhaps the doctors should consider how much time they would save/have with their patients if they refused to see drug reps. Do doctors really need a free lunch from drug reps (you know, what they say… "There is no such thing as a free lunch")? Do doctors really want to be seen as promoting one type of drug – when perhaps another drug is better?

A good question posed by the good doctor:

Is there an ethical way that drug makers can market to doctors about the latest
advances in drug therapy?

As the doctor suggests, perhaps the pharmas can redirect the money it takes for sales calls and using it for social causes. Or perhaps pharma companies could put their educational information/ programs online so the doctors could review them at their own leisure – instead of during office hours. Or how about (and this is a new one) making "a charitable donation each time [the doctor] view[s] new material."

These are all great suggestions.

Perhaps a pharmaceutical company will read this.