GlaxoSmithKline Will End Payments to Doctors

The days of physicians receiving payments from pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline to promote its products are coming to an end.

Beginning in 2016, doctors will no longer be compensated to attend conferences or speak publicly about GlaxoSmithKline’s products to audiences whose members play an important role in the prescribing process, Reuters reports.

This is a major development in an industry that’s been criticized for its marketing methods because they appear to create a financial incentive for physicians to prescribe certain high-priced drugs when a lower-cost alternative would do. Says the Portland Press Herald of Maine:

The company is the first major drug manufacturer to take such a step, although the industry as a whole has scaled back its use of doctors to promote specific drugs as scrutiny of drug industry-doctor relationships has increased. Broad, mandatory disclosure rules are set to take effect next year as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Reuters says London-based GSK pays an estimated $82 million a year to doctors to attend or speak at conferences.

“We recognize that we have an important role to play in providing doctors with information about our medicines, but this must be done clearly, transparently and without any perception of conflict of interest,” Andrew Witty, chief executive officer of GlaxoSmithKline, said in a statement.

That’s a nice development, considering other recent news. The Wall Street Journal reports:

This summer, Chinese authorities accused Glaxo of bribing doctors, hospitals and government officials to sell more drugs at higher prices. Glaxo has said it is cooperating with the investigation.

And last year, Glaxo agreed to pay $3 billion and plead guilty to criminal charges in the U.S. that it illegally promoted drugs and withheld drug-safety data from regulators.

The company also announced that by 2015 it will do away with sales-based bonuses to in-house marketing staff, which it has already done in the U.S. “Instead, the staff will be evaluated and rewarded for their technical knowledge of the drugs and the quality of the service they deliver to support improved patient care,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says.

What are your thoughts about GlaxoSmithKline’s marketing changes? Let us know below or on our Facebook page.

Sign up for our free newsletter

Like this article? Sign up for our newsletter and we'll send you a regular digest of our newest stories, full of money saving tips and advice, free! We'll also email you a PDF of Stacy Johnson's "205 Ways to Save Money" as soon as you've subscribed. It's full of great tips that'll help you save a ton of extra cash. It doesn't cost a dime, so why wait? Click here to sign up now.

Check out our hottest deals!

We're always adding new deals and coupons that'll save you big bucks. See the deals to the right and hundreds more in our Deals section.

Click here to explore 1,194 more deals!

Comments & discussion

We welcome your opinions, but let’s keep it civil. Like many businesses, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. In our case, that means those who communicate by name-calling, racism, using words designed to hurt others or generally acting like an uninformed bully. Also, comments that include links to email addresses or commercial websites typically aren't posted. This isn't a place to advertise your business.

  • wisernow2013

    In the 1990s, while working at the NYC deportation center, I first learned of cash given to physicians at each conference attended, which was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. These were held at the Waldorf Astoria. Interestingly, the physician prescribed for all detainees psychotropic drugs. However, I informed him that it would not be administered unless necessary, in view of the fact, that most did not manifest any unsafe behavior or had any past history. He agreed to change some of the orders to PRN (as needed, with specific instructions). That unsafe practice has contributed to many of the fatal outcomes in healthcare. On another occasion, while on a routine MD visit, I overheard a female pharmaceutical rep. arguing with and challenging my physician, Dr. F. Lue, who was refusing to accept samples of a medication. She reminded him that they had access to their prescription practices and wanted to know why he had not been prescribing a particular drug. He explained that his patients (primarily Afro-Americans and West Indians, did not react favorably to the drug. I later commended him for his ethics.