DO DOCTORS NEED MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES TO CALL ON THEM ?

I suppose, the ethos behind an MR visiting a doc was a very noble one. It was to highlight to the Doc, the launch of a new product, the molecular composition of the drug, its dosage, potency administration, indications and contra indications by way of a presentation. This was to ensure that the doc is in sync with the manufacturers / developers idea of how or why that drug should be administered to a patient. So an MR was expected to play the role of a vital link in treatment. In that I also agree with Romita Ghosh where she says that MR is the only source of authentic data. However, commercial concerns and bottomlines, business targets , career progression profiles have all contributed to the MR being reduced to a mere middleman whom the pharma companies use for product promotion. The extent of the lure extended by the companies through MRs to the Docs is unbelievable.

I believe some doctors do count upon MRs to call on them. A polished MR can not only save overworked doctors precious time by keeping them up to date with the latest developments they can also be easy source of Information pertainting to upcoming molecules, competitor brands, Clinical trials, CMEs, International conferences etc. For instance a doctor from Suburb or a remote area is greatly dependent on a Co. representative for stock keeping & co. support. If MRs were a strict no no then marketing giants like Pfizer, J&J, Roche, AstraZeneca would have changed their practices by now. In fact many docs look forward to follow ups for Clinical datas, journal publications and other studies.  An MR is the only authentic source of data directly from the co., much effective than an Agent/Dealer with a huge catalog selling every specialities and every brands with poor scientific background about each of them.