drug reps make 250k? ummmm....

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
If you are going to get nearly idential results, though, I'm not against throwing the rep a bone. It's a fine line, but as long as you make patient outcome the "rate-limiting-step" I have no problem with drug reps. I just wish they could still take the docs golfing... I'd lobby for that any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

See that's part of the problem...you're willing to throw them a bone...and in your example it's Viagra vs Cialis. What if one of them was available as a generic, and the other one isn't but their rep has been buttering you up?

You'd just be passing the buck to insurance (assuming they'd cover non-generic Cialis over a generic Viagara or vice versa), and thus to everyone paying for insurance. Sure, you're just one doc, but multiply this by every single doctor and you suddenly have a hella expensive problem.

And even if they had nearly identical results, which one would actually work better for the patient? (Cialis doesn't work exactly like Viagara since you're talking 3 days vs 5 hours) Which one has less risks for the patient considering his medical history?

Anyways, is big pharma the devil? No, I don't believe that, but if you don't think big pharma does some VERY shady and unethical stuff then you're out of your mind. AstraZeneca and all the bullcrap they pulled advertising Nexium to doctors when Prilosec beat Nexium in almost every test they performed except one? (and that one had the Nexium "standard dose" set mysteriously to twice the Prilosec dose, lol) Hell, their advertising worked so well that someone in my class actually started insisting that Nexium wasn't like Prilosec at all when I pointed out that Nexium is just one of the isomers in Prilosec. She went raving because she "knew" this from working in some doctor's office or something.

Oh, and when I attened an insurance coverage meeting at work once, a nurse actually asked our insurance company rep if Nexium was covered (vs Prilosec) *sigh*

You'd think a nurse and a public health major would be less gullible, but apparently not.

Anyways, the real problem here isn't that the drug companies advertise. It's that they use advertising to get away with selling you drugs that aren't any better for more money, while they extend their patents over and over on ridiculous tweaks that are supposedly improvements. And instead of actually innovating they usually just lawyer up then launch a bazillion lawsuits left and right if someone attempts to make a generic. They'll patent the stupidest thing ever (like sugar coating a tablet, even though such a patent is worthless since it's prior art you still slow down anybody who wants to make a generic by tying them up in court), hundreds of them for EVERY DRUG THEY HAVE then take the generic drug companies to court over and over and over to delay the generic coming to market.

Here's another example of one of these stupid patents:
AstraZeneca, attempting to extend its monopoly, filed a new patent claim describing how Prilosec could be sprinkled on applesauce for use by patients who have trouble swallowing pills. Under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules, this meant that would-be generic competitors would have to prove that their versions would behave the same way when sprinkled on applesauce. Overcoming this hurdle will require more testing and cause more delays, preventing patients who can swallow pills from getting cheaper drugs.
Completely nonsensical patent that's just meant to delay the release of a generic

If the drug companies played fair and didn't use advertising to push the exact same drug to you at 10x the price of an existing drug I wouldn't care if they advertised. New drugs that are actually huge improvements should be made known to people, and there's nothing wrong with that. There *is* something wrong though, with making people think your "new" drug is better than your old one when it gets beaten in half the tests by the old one, and costs 10x as much. There *is* something wrong with filing tons of patents over the most nonsensical of things (and I know I seem like I'm picking on AstraZeneca but this patent BS applies to all of big pharma...all of them file the most absurd patents), just to force generic manufacturers to have to go to court over whether or not their pill can be sprinkled on applesauce too.

Oh here's another company using the applesauce trick (I guess everyone uses the applesauce trick, lol):
Currently, the FDA is considering a petition from American Home Products Corp., Madison, N.J., against the generic version of the hypertension drug Verelan, called verapamil. Verapamil already has been shown to dissolve in the bloodstream at essentially the same rate as the brand product when in capsule form. But American Home says an additional test is necessary: It wants the generic company to sprinkle the drug on applesauce, have patients ingest it, and measure how fast it is absorbed. That is because the Verelan label says the medicine can "be administered by carefully opening the capsule and sprinkling the pellets on a spoonful of applesauce." Toronto-based Biovail Corp., the generic maker, says it believes it has successfully completed the applesauce test.

Even when petitions fail, they can keep generic drugs off the market for months or years. At least 40 were filed between 1990 and 1997 against generic drugs. Of the 29 already decided, 24 were rejected by the FDA. But it took the agency between seven months and four years to approve the generic drugs in question after the petitions were filed.

And btw, comparing them to car companies isn't entirely fair. They don't advertise that their new car pollutes less when it in fact pollutes more, or that the new car has more horsepower when it has the same horsepower. No, they actually make the engines more powerful, make cars get better mileage, and generally improve the cars whenever a new model comes out, or their competition would take their market share. If car companies tried to sell you the exact same cars year after year without actually improving them, and tried to keep other carmakers from competing with ridiculous patents you would be pretty pissed off no?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Also.....Looks are a pretty important part. I don't know how many very attractive girls (can't testify about guys) I have seen. They sell more...tend to be taller, in shape. Looks fade...

You can make good money, but anything with sales SUCKS. The best ones at it are waking up, taking a potential client to breakfast, talking, calling, talking, calling, reading up on materials, lunch with client, talking, calling, calling, driving driving driving driving, getting yelled at, client to dinner, talking. Prep for the next day and repeat.

Agree with this, the most successful (read - most money) drug reps tend to very attractive - though even those with mediocre looks can make a decent living. The women are the type that look fab in heels and designer suits, and the men are definitely not schlubs.

The other thing is - they do have to kiss alot of butt and look happy about it. A fabulous looking friend makes a mint, but has to keep her nails done, workout, heavy upkeep expenses, look perfect and deal with HCPs either hitting on her, insulting her, avoiding her with lame excuses, all sorts of personal behavior issues.

I've worked for Disney - I don't want to live my life like that.
 
...the real problem here isn...that they use advertising to get away with selling you drugs that aren't any better for more money, while they extend their patents over and over on ridiculous tweaks that are supposedly improvements. And instead of actually innovating they usually just lawyer up then launch a bazillion lawsuits left and right if someone attempts to make a generic.

If the drug companies played fair and didn't use advertising to push the exact same drug to you at 10x the price of an existing drug I wouldn't care if they advertised. New drugs that are actually huge improvements should be made known to people.

Great post. Most companies try to charge as much as the market will bear by any means possible, including filing lawsuits to delay competition. For all it's faults, the capitalist system still provides the greatest impetus for new drugs and drug delivery methods to be created/discovered. Reform of the legal system pertaining to patent law would help minimize the lawsuits filed just to impede competitors. When you think about it, companies that create new drugs do deserve to profit totally for a given length of time, just not indefinitely. Unfortunately, some of their business plans focus less on innovation and more on smoke and mirrors marketing.

CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
the price controls were in response to the war (nixon did the same, remember??) at it's base, fascism is an economic system characterized by unrestrained capitalism w/o any protections for workers etc...

read a book about it sometime and quit quoting your high school social studies teacher


I kept checking the thread all night, but just figured you didn't have the nuts to respond.... bravo!

Trust me, I read more than a book about fascism. In fact, I wrote a few papers in a theory class for my Economics major. Just so you know, price controls WERE NOT a response to war, and a fascist government DOES NOT have a clearly defined economy. Fascism is more politics than economics, but they both have a habit of getting in the way of eachother.

Anyway, the component of your "fascist economy" that I disagree with is the government/coporate collusion. You wouldn't have needed much more than wikipedia to figure that out, much less your fancy "books."

And Nixon was a *****.
 
I was following a Family Practice guy last year and they had a drug rep in the office doing her lunch talk. She was a nice girl, pretty decent looking, friendly, etc. The doctor had to leave to see a patient with psych issues who wouldn't feel comfortable with a student, so I stayed and talked to her a while. Turned out she knew my cousin so she kinda opened up to me.

She didn't really slam the drug rep life, but man did it sound awful to me the way she described it. Basically, she was selling a drug which acted on neurotransmitters and sounding very knowledgeable about how their new product affected a certain subset of receptors found to be the one appropriate...blah blah blah blah.

Well, I knew drug reps tend to only know the drugs they sell, but it was amazing how little she actually knew about it. Basically all the stuff she says has been scripted out for her, even to the point where they've got prepared answers for the most common comments and criticisms of the drug. But she has no idea what it measn. It's just rote memorization of "Okay, if the doctor asks about anticholinergic side effects you say blank". There's no intellectual curiosity or satisfaction. Sure, you're dealing with a medical topic, but there's very little "medical" about the job.

Also, she shared with me how she's aware how the field eats its young. She has no illusions she'll be passed by for a younger, fresher, drug rep in a few years, but she's okay with it because her husband will hopefully be an established lawyer by that point and she can cut back.

Really, if you're interested in all about going into medical school, drug rep work would be drudgery and soul crushing, no matter what they get paid.
 
i was shadowing today and a drug rep talked to me after the docs left. said i should work for his pharmaceutical company and make 200 k w/in 1 year and he makes around 250k. is this possible? i laughed and told him that i will be making half of that by the time i get out of residency IN EIGHT YEARS! lol. i know a guy can get miserable if he does his work just for money, but DANG. i'm going to med school and working pretty hard for another decade just so that i can make half of what this drug rep does? :laugh:

If you're just after the money, you're in the wrong professional track.
 
If you're just after the money, you're in the wrong professional track.


if you're just after money, you are in the wrong professional track no matter what it is.
 
I-banking? What else do those guys care about?

the job itself is very interesting.. it is the stress and hours that blow (i have a friend at lehman brothers). he does actually enjoy his job though.

those who go into it for the money won't be happy. i guess there could be a select few who are truly happy doing a horrible job and getting a large paycheck. personally, money is great and i want to be well off but if i was forced to choose between love/happiness and money, i'd chose love/happiness in a heartbeat.

long term? i don't think anyone will be truly happy doing a job solely for the money.
 
.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know a reputable pharmacist company?. We have a medicine in my family that cure's fibroid within a month and stroke withing 6 months. I met with one company representative after seen the result of the fibroid, he almost cheat me. Many women are suffering with this diseases,where I come from its just a simple diseases

How do you "cure" stroke over a six month time span? Why did you create an SDN account to ask this bizarre question in a ten year old thread? How do magnets work ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Big deal. You're at the beck and call of the company you work for and I can't imagine the work is very engaging. I work at a doctors' office and see drug reps all the time. They're mostly disliked by the physicians and the information they provide doesn't really seem to have any influence as far as prescribing goes. The free food they bring is nice though :thumbup:
 
Top