> It's also keeping physicians up to date on the current science, applicability, and best practices of their products. I think it's a good thing for sales reps and MSLs to inform or remind physicians that there are alternatives to writing a script for Epipens, for example.
There are many very cheap ways of keeping physicians up-to date, such as a conference presentation of the drug, followed by a Q&A session, with a recording freely available online.
> Many drugs are cheap to make, but that neglects the astronomical development and regulatory costs.
Which are covered in the already mentioned 20% that goes to R&D (source pending). Are you purposefully ignoring information you dislike?
> There are many very cheap ways of keeping physicians up-to date, such as a conference presentation of the drug, followed by a Q&A session, with a recording freely available online.
Because most doctors are happy to spend hours watching recordings of drug presentations.
For better or worse, doctors are just people and if you want them to understand the benefits of your new drug, it will fall to you to convince them. Most doctors are not going to thoroughly study every new drug.
> Because most doctors are happy to spend hours watching recordings of drug presentations.
And yet somehow I am supposed to be overjoyed at spending hours watching conference talks, reading blog posts and documentation, and doing other things to evaluate new tech and learn new languages/libraries that are not my direct job just to keep up to date on my rapidly-changing industry?
Welcome to the 21st century doctors. I would unpack and play the worlds tiniest violin for you, but I have a few more confreaks youtube videos to plough through right now.
I don't know, honestly, but hand waving and saying doctors should all take the initiative to self educate won't do it. Maybe they should, but many likely won't.
The only thing I can think is to make it mandatory continued education. But even that is iffy. Part of the problem is that there's just not that much additional data on new drugs. By definition the FDA thinks the drug is safe (relatively) and effective so what's the education going to look like and who's going to put it together?
> There are many very cheap ways of keeping physicians up-to date, such as a conference presentation of the drug, followed by a Q&A session, with a recording freely available online.
5 minutes of face time with a busy physician and supplying them with a useful article targeted to their specific needs can be far more effective.
> Which are covered in the already mentioned 20% that goes to R&D (source pending). Are you purposefully ignoring information you dislike?
The dev part was an honest error while I was editing, and I don't think the accusation is called for. Regulatory costs, and I think of quality also being in that group, is not an R&D cost and is substantial.
There are many very cheap ways of keeping physicians up-to date, such as a conference presentation of the drug, followed by a Q&A session, with a recording freely available online.
> Many drugs are cheap to make, but that neglects the astronomical development and regulatory costs.
Which are covered in the already mentioned 20% that goes to R&D (source pending). Are you purposefully ignoring information you dislike?