Skip to main content

A $20 Drug Company Meal Yields 2-5 Times More Prescriptions

Accepting a single pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meal was associated with higher rates of prescribing certain drugs to Medicare patients by physicians, with more, and costlier, meals associated with greater increases in prescribing, according to an article published online by JAMA Internal Medicine.

Some argue industry-sponsored meals and payments help facilitate the discussion of novel treatments but others have raised concerns about the potential to influence prescribing patterns. Previous studies have suggested physician-industry relationships were associated with increased prescribing of brand-name drugs.

R. Adams Dudley, M.D., M.B.A., of the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors linked two national data sets to quantify the association between industry payments and physician prescribing patterns.

Authors identified the most-prescribed brand-name drugs in each of four categories in Medicare Part D in 2013. The target drugs were rosuvastatin calcium among statins, nebivolol among cardioselective β-blockers, olmesartan medoxomil among angiotensin receptor blockers (ACE inhibitors and ARBs), and desvenlafaxine succinate among selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs). The 2013 Open Payments database describes the value and the drug or device promoted for payments to physicians for five months in 2013 as reported by pharmaceutical companies.

Authors report 279,669 physicians received 63,524 payments associated with the four target drugs, with 95 percent of those payments being meals that had an average value of less than $20. Rosuvastatin accounted for 8.8 percent of statin prescriptions; nebivolol represented 3.3 percent of cardioselective β-blocker prescriptions; olmesartan represented 1.6 percent of ACE inhibitor and ARB prescriptions; and desvenlafaxine represented 0.6 percent of SSRI and SNRI prescriptions.

Physicians who received meals related to the targeted drugs on four or more days prescribed rosuvastatin at 1.8 times the rate of physicians receiving no target meals, nebivolol at 5.4 times the rate, olmesartan at 4.5 times the rate, and desvenlafaxine at 3.4 times the rate, according to the results.

Physicians who received only a single meal promoting the four target drugs also had higher rates of prescribing those medications, the results suggest. Additional meals and costlier meals were associated with higher prescribing rates.

Higher proportions of the physicians who received industry payments were men, solo practitioners, and physicians who practiced in the South, the authors report.

The authors note their results are cross-sectional and reflect an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship. For example, if physicians choose to attend industry events where information is provided about drugs they already prefer then meals may have no effect on their prescribing patterns.

“Our findings support the importance of ongoing transparency efforts in the United States and Europe,” the study concludes.

Join The Discussion

Robert Kimelheim

| Jun 21, 2016 6:20 am

Exposing oneself to the edgy and cutting edge may indeed change behavior .I might then suggest that the brand of clothing that the President's wife wear not be revealed and that perhaps a simple smock might better send a message of containment? If I could gain access to Solganol I might still use it (my patients sorely miss its absence). Azulfidine and plaquenil I still use...but on occasion I feel "compelled" to use those darn biologics. And how in the world could I possibly know about them if not for those expensive dinners with my peers! My choices are not propelled by drug companies but by the insurance companies and if you can explain to me the cost structure, rebates, patient coupons then THAT would be a most valuable luncheon to attend. Marketing and sales are a main industry of this country. I do not know what magazines our politicians read, but I then vote that all ads be removed and that they not be permitted to espouse any brand either by dining or wearable preference? Can someone please shout out " The Emperor is Not wearing Any Clothes"!

James Loveless

| Jun 21, 2016 5:38 pm

This study was biased. It is worth reviewing the comments that appear after the WSJ article for additional insight and perspective.

If you are a health practitioner, you may to comment.

Due to the nature of these comment forums, only health practitioners are allowed to comment at this time.

Disclosures
The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this subject