This indeed makes it much more difficult to pin down and see which physicians are using which drugs, but from their own internal sales information each drug company will have sales from drug stores, so the overall business from a pre set territory can be derived, so perhaps a new curve in Pharma marketing, work the territory and not the doctors, so in essence each physician should be receiving the educational materials needed without other marketing interference.
Many Pharma companies are beginning to outsource their sales force as well, with a 3rd party representing several drugs and perhaps even more than one manufacturer as well.
From a prior post:
If this continues in the outsourcing direction then a territory focus would seem to fall right in line with accomplishing sales methodologies and the individual doctor records may not bear perhaps as much importance at they do today, and I make this comment strictly with a marketing twist only. We will know more as time goes on and observe the next wave. BD
The federal appeals court in Boston upheld New Hampshire’s law barring the sale of doctor prescribing data, rebuffing the drug industry’s argument that the law infringes free speech.
Drug companies buy the detailed information on prescribing histories from companies like IMS Health and Verispan and use it for everything from tailoring doctor-specific sales pitches to calculating compensation for sales reps. The data houses are the ones challenging New Hampshire’s 2006 Prescription Information Law.
In a 51-page decision this afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit overturned a lower-court decision striking down New Hampshire’s data-mining ban as an unconstitutional violation of free speech. “In our view, the portions of the law at issue here regulate conduct, not speech,” Judge Bruce Selya wrote.