> It's sort of screwed up that drug companies are expected to educate doctors about their drugs since there's a huge conflict of interest there. But nobody else is paying to train doctors in this.
The medical profession has continuing education requirements, much like other regulated professions, and a lot of that is about keeping up with new developments in each practitioner's area of practice. To the extent that continuing education isn't directly subsidized by employers, the need to do it is part of what justifies the high salaries doctors receive. So, yes, people -- other than pharmaceutical vendors -- are paying to train doctors to keep up with relevant developments in their field.
Pharma companies aren't spending vast sums of money marketing to doctors because there is an education gap, they are doing it because the sales of prescription drugs aren't at the sole discretion of the consumer -- that's the whole point of the prescription requirement -- so doctors are the key decisionmakers that they need to sell to.
The medical profession has continuing education requirements, much like other regulated professions, and a lot of that is about keeping up with new developments in each practitioner's area of practice. To the extent that continuing education isn't directly subsidized by employers, the need to do it is part of what justifies the high salaries doctors receive. So, yes, people -- other than pharmaceutical vendors -- are paying to train doctors to keep up with relevant developments in their field.
Pharma companies aren't spending vast sums of money marketing to doctors because there is an education gap, they are doing it because the sales of prescription drugs aren't at the sole discretion of the consumer -- that's the whole point of the prescription requirement -- so doctors are the key decisionmakers that they need to sell to.