class=”sc-29f61514-0 icZBHN”>
Last year, conference fees for 3,698 doctors were financed by the pharmaceutical industry. Many also collected accommodation costs. Or they were directly on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies because they also worked as consultants to them. 7.5 million francs went directly to the medical profession in 2022; This is one million more than the previous year.
A data analysis by the Ringier Axel Springer Research Network shows that: Many doctor networks systematically receive sponsorship money from pharmaceutical companies. It is unknown how they use these additives and, above all, what benefits they offer to the pharmaceutical industry in return.
A former senior executive at a pharmaceutical company who spent years deciding on the allocation of sponsorship money puts it bluntly: “In the end, it’s all about talking to the doctors.” He hoped to be able to contact and visit doctors directly in exchange for a sponsorship of approximately 5,000 francs. Such contacts are not only time-consuming for doctors, but are also frowned upon because pharmaceutical representatives are merely promoting their company’s drugs.
700,000 francs – completely legal
The latest data analysis shows: Last year more than 40 doctor networks received sponsorship money ranging from a few hundred francs to several tens of thousands of francs. Pizolcare AG is at the top with 69,000 francs. The network of more than 100 general practitioners, specialists and hospital doctors in the Sargans/Werdenberg region is not afraid of contacting the pharmaceutical industry. Since 2015, when the disclosure obligation was introduced, sponsorship income has reached 642,000 francs. If you add the contributions invoiced through your own support association, you get almost 700,000 francs.
Everything is correct. The medical products law expressly allows such payments. The funds must be arranged contractually and must not constitute an “undue advantage” for the doctor. The main purpose of the medicinal products law: The choice of medical treatment can be based only on scientific and objective criteria, not on financial incentives.
Urs Keller, Chairman of the Board of Pizolcare, emphasizes that every support contribution from the industry is regulated by an individual contract. The sponsorship money is used to co-finance further education events organized by the medical network.
In close contact with doctors
In fact, Pizolcare is a prime example of how the pharmaceutical industry has purchased direct access to the medical profession. For example, generic drug manufacturer Mepha paid 19,500 francs to support a doctor’s symposium, the network’s quality circles, a patient education program and advanced training of medical practice assistants. In return, many of the pharmaceutical company’s sales representatives were allowed to attend events, hang posters, distribute documents and place the logo.
Pizolcare received a “service and consulting fee” from Novartis; this term is interpreted generously: the group was allowed to send “scientific product information” via the newsletter to the network’s doctors for 3,000 francs and to embed its logo.
According to Pizolcare President Keller, Novartis was also allowed to attend general meetings of the medical network and support association with its own staff. Here were “fundamental discussions about the healthcare system” from a managed care perspective, that is, “grassroots knowledge about the possible future of the healthcare system.”
With 800 doctors and its own ten companies, the Medix Swiss association has a completely different approach to sponsorship money, making it the largest network in Switzerland. “We do not accept any money and want to be independent,” says President Felix Huber. “I don’t want to be beholden to the pharmaceutical industry.”
Background: Medix promotes high-quality and at the same time cost-effective treatment and produces constantly updated expert information and “guides” based on scientific findings for affiliated family physicians. Huber finds pharmaceutical sponsorship “shocking” and says: “We don’t need this money, we can finance ourselves differently.”
Legally, sponsorship money is a gray area. In principle, “monetary benefits” are prohibited. However, the law allows payments under certain conditions. Financial support should not be tied to conditions or requirements intended to influence medical prescribing behavior. In addition, the thinking of those who receive the money must be “appropriate”.
“I don’t know if the laws work”
In 2020, two new articles aimed at strengthening integrity and transparency in the Therapeutic Products Law came into force. It is unclear how the Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) checks the new legislation. A spokesperson confirmed that BAG has not opened a single administrative penalty case to date.
It is not yet clear whether the Federal Office has an audit program and whether it at least randomly examines contracts between doctors, physician networks, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry. “Some tasks were slightly postponed” due to the pandemic. According to BAG, “sanction structures” were created. On the other hand, it is openly admitted that BAG has never analyzed the data published by the pharmaceutical industry for eight years.
Ivo Meli, responsible for health issues in consumer protection, just nods: “Effective legal regulation also requires control. “But so far we have no idea whether the laws passed three years ago are actually effective.”
Collaboration: Simon Huwiler, Michael Heim, Seraina Gross, Lisa Aeschlimann
Source :Blick
I’m Tim David and I work as an author for 24 Instant News, covering the Market section. With a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism, my mission is to provide accurate, timely and insightful news coverage that helps our readers stay informed about the latest trends in the market. My writing style is focused on making complex economic topics easy to understand for everyone.
