Should the US Government Restrict Drug Company Perks for Physicians?

This discussion board post examines the ethical considerations surrounding gifts and perks offered by drug companies to physicians, focusing on the question of whether the U.S. government or the American Medical Association should impose restrictions. The student's response analyzes the impact of free lunches and other incentives on physician prescribing practices, drawing on research that shows a correlation between these perks and increased prescription rates. The post argues that such practices are unethical, as they can lead to physicians prescribing drugs based on the incentives rather than the patient's best interests, potentially increasing healthcare costs and limiting access to more affordable medications. The student supports their position with examples and quotes from the provided readings, emphasizing the need for regulations to ensure that patient care remains the primary focus and to prevent pharmaceutical companies from unduly influencing medical decisions. The author suggests the government and medical associations should develop measures to stop drug-makers from influencing physicians with perks.

DISCUSSION Q. 3. THE U.S GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON
PERKS AND GIFTS THAT DRUG COMPANIES OFFER PHYSICIANS
Student’s Name
Course
Date

1
Free lunches and perks have become some of the effective marketing strategies in
different industries, and the pharmaceutical industries have not been left out of this wave of
competitive advantage. Proponents of free lunches argue that they create mutual relationships
between manufacturers and physicians. However, gifts and perks are used to market
pharmaceutical drugs, but the motive behind the offers is to influence physicians to increase
prescription of drugs from the company that sponsors their free lunches. This paper explains why
the United States government and the American Medical Association should ban gifts and perks
that drug makers have been giving physicians.
The primary role of drug-makers’ representatives is to increase the sales of the drug with
the goal of attracting significant profits to the parent company. Even though the healthcare sector
deals with issues of the lives of patients, studies have established that drug makers are no longer
concerned with the value of patients. The article by Saul states that “…the lunches go down
along with a pitch from pharmaceutical representatives hoping to bolster prescription sales…”.1
A study conducted by MarketWatch found that free lunches and perks increased prescription
rates by 73%.2 This is unethical because doctors can prescribe drugs without necessarily taking
into consideration the quality or affordability of the drug that they prescribe to the patient.
One of the moral concerns that emanate from free lunches and perks to physicians is that
the drug maker transfers the cost of the gift to the patient. Saul explains that “The cost of the
lunches is ultimately factored into drug company marketing expenses, working its way into the
price of prescription drugs…”3 Patients are forced to buy expensive drugs while affordable drugs
1 Saul, Stephanie. “Drug Makers Pay for Lunch as they Pitch.” The New York
Times.
2. Emma, Court. “Doctor Payments increased Drug Prescribing by 73%,
New Study Finds.” MarketWatch,
2
3

2
are in the market because the free lunches have influenced the physician’s prescription. Levy’s
article published Medscape explains how some doctors confessed to having been influenced by
gifts and perks to make impaired prescriptions at the expense of consumers that cannot afford
expensive drugs. A different article published in The Fortune by Ian Mount explains how drug
makers amass billions of dollars from the U.S healthcare system after influencing physicians
through free meals, gifts, and free sponsorships.4 This is unethical, and the government and the
American Medical Association should come up with measures that prevent drug-makers from
influencing physicians.
Physicians should not accept gifts from representatives of pharmaceutical companies.
Pharmaceutical companies entice doctors through gifts to increase the sale of their drugs. Drug-
makers have devised a strategy of increasing sales and amassing profit by influencing the way
physicians prescribe their medications to patients. Patients and the U.S healthcare system ends
up incurring costs that could have been avoided if drug makers did not influence patients.
4 Saul. “Drug Makers Pay for Lunch as they Pitch.”
4. Mount, Ian. “A Cheap Lunch from a Pharma Rep Can Influence Doctors’
Prescriptions.”

3
Bibliography
Emma, Court. “Doctor Payments increased Drug Prescribing by 73%, New Study Finds.”
MarketWatch, 3 Aug. 2018. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/doctor-payments-
increased-drug-prescribing-by-73-new-study-finds-2018-07-30. Accessed 3 Oct. 2019.
Levy, Sandra. “Do Free Drug Rep Lunches Sway Doctors? See What Physicians Say.”
Medscape, 23 Oct. 2018. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892290. Accessed 3
Oct. 2019.
Mount, Ian. “A Cheap Lunch from a Pharma Rep Can Influence Doctors’ Prescriptions.”
Fortune, 21 June 2016. https://fortune.com/2016/06/21/doctors-cheaper-drug-
prescriptions/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2019.
Saul, Stephanie. Mendelsohn, Barak. “Drug Makers Pay for Lunch as they Pitch.” The
New York Times, 28 July 2006.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/business/28lunch.html. Accessed 3 Oct. 2019.