Impact of restrictions on gifts to MD's on prescribing patterns

Implications: Pharmaceutical companies spend over $10,000 per physician on direct gifts and similar activities.  These activities are designed to influence prescribing patterns, and most certainly do.  Monitoring sales of drug classes as drugs come off patent, as in anti allergy medications, drugs for acid reflux, etc, would indicate that physicans rapidly change subscribing patterns in response to combined advertising campaigns, not just scientific evidence. This bill presumes that doctors are innappropriately influenced by gifts, and that eliminating gifts will eliminate the pressure.  In theory, the patient is thus more likely to get the right drug, or the cheaper drug. As in politics, however, it is hard to see that legislation will rapidly get money out of the system.  If there is money to be spent, companies will figure out how to spend it. 

Analysis: In our institution, we have fairly explicit and comprehensive conflict of interest laws.  This doesn't stop companies from pushing to and beyond the limits of the rules.  From the companies point of view, for public consumption, it costs money to get the word out on new products, and doctors deserve to be compensated for their time.  Physicians like the benefits, and the attention.  As long as their is money to spend, drug companies will figure out new and creative ways to do so.