I think WE makes some good points. I personally don't have strong philosophical objections to the data mining itself. I primarily intended to point out to those who do that:
-Opting out doesn't stop the mining, only field reps from seeing it;
-A physician organization (the AMA) facilitates the process;
-IMHO there is utility in discussing prescribing habits and rationales, and the data can therefore be useful for prescribers if it were available to them.
There are some who believe that discussion of such data is inappropriate and unprofessional; for them, assuming they choose to see reps at all, I would think personal limit setting would work.
I've never really understood the argument some physicians make that reps use this information to "pressure" prescribers. Perhaps I'm being trite and/or parsing words, but "pressure" is an uncomfortable feeling that comes from within. If a rep has a valid point about my prescribing, I consider it. If s/he is using invalid or irrelevant information or a fallacy of logic, I say so and disregard it. I just don't feel pressured by someone who is a guest in my office and to whom I have no direct accountability.
Thanks, all, for your interesting posts!
