The employment crisis that hit the area of \u200b\u200bscientific information is unprecedented, even in '94, when there was a reclassification of drugs, they lost so many jobs! 12,000, is estimated in the past 2 years. But why did it come to this?
During 97/05 the main goal of many pharmaceutical companies to increase sales, has been an increase in the frequency of requests for information, especially for certain categories / products with high growth potential and profitability.
Such a high frequency of visits has led the doctor to not recognize the value of the ISF and it became less willing to grant their time. The visit has become less traditional lever differentiation and consequently the productivity of the visits is falling sharply: the doctors recall only 4% of all visits made by the ISF (as announced at a conference on scientific information in About Pharma in September 2006).
At the same time becoming stronger and stronger, on the one hand, the prescriptive role of specialists, and other, even the increasingly active role that a growing number of pharmacies will play in influencing the choices of patients. Above all, the institutions that govern the SSR, which play an increased role in influencing the dynamics prescriptive.
They're then changing roles and weights of the various actors that contribute to determining the limitation period, but still weighs less than the general practitioner.
Some factors have reduced in the future and reduce the possibility of obtaining an adequate differentiation of their products based on a high rate of frequency of visits to doctors: regional regulations confining the number of visits of the ISF, different ways of managing visits information, new Consolidated (Legislative Decree no. 219/06).
The market for drugs within the competence of general practitioner then has become less attractive both because of the inability of regulators to distinguish between drugs truly innovative to be remunerated by the other, both because of the indiscriminate measures to contain pharmaceutical expenditure by ministries and by regional and progressive due to the introduction of generic drugs on the management of which weighs the role of the pharmacist and the discounts that is practiced.
therefore becoming more and more prescriptive role of specialists, the new products introduced in the market are increasingly geared to areas of specialist and hospital management more profitable and require fixed costs (ISF) remain very low.
In this context, the ISF, not retrained by the establishment of a register or a suitable profile in Legislative Decree no. 219 and reduced to a mere instrument of profit, will be used less and less: Just a few ISF who attend specialist centers, and other, non-standard contracts or flexible to be used for purely commercial purposes.
Today, many pharmaceutical companies adapt to the framework described above and "refocused" their strategies. The transaction involves the sale or substantial reduction of ISF on the general practitioner (known lines "primary care") whose consequence is the loss of employment for those 12,000 reporters, said that al'inizio.
It is true that the number of ISF was hypertrophic and had expected a decline, but now it falls into the opposite. What is at stake then, beyond the loss of work of so many people (which is very serious), is a disturbing scenario: the market of drugs for primary care will be less innovative (research costs a lot and is no longer attractive remuneration) and will be dominated by old products, but most will the general practitioner who has actually had to abdicate its role should be central to a health service.
The financial and economic crisis that has engulfed the global world of 2008 centers relatively little. The data for sale of drugs in Italy in 2008, announced dall'OsMed (National Observatory on the use of drugs) Institute of Health, show no decrease, indeed, from 2000 to 2008 the per capita consumption of medicines grew by 60%.
Globalization, understood as the financing of the economy, reform of the labor market, the attack on unions, the liberalization of capital movements, has to do instead in the philosophy that underlies many decisions and choices of pharmaceutical companies . This philosophy has transformed companies from institutions, as it were, interwoven into the social interests of workers, owners, local communities, state, suppliers in pure cash. The dominant criterion is the maximization of shareholder value. The only thing that matters is the value for shareholders indicated by the company's market over the equities. The interests of workers, suppliers, local communities, are irrelevant. How insignificant are the criteria that once pointed to the success of a company, type the size reached, the turnover, the number of employees, technology leadership, market position.
It is clear that what is spent on dividends, interest, stock option, is not available for productive investment, much less in research and development since they promise to yield relatively distant and uncertain. Investors can not expect much. The Company must continually produce profits and capital gains. From here acquisitions to merge to cover the deficit of research, hence not hire employees with permanent contracts, hence the pressure to ensure that workers and unions should show "moderation", hence the closure of production units whose performance, although high, is lower than the average of competing companies, hence the use of divestiture of a business, mobility, collective redundancies. No coincidence that when you announce such transactions shares of that company who made the announcement goes up. No accident that the securities industry "Pharma" have gained 14% since the beginning of the year.
In this scenario, the informants are those who pay the highest price in terms of employment. Although high, the number of layoffs, of mobility, cassintegrati, sales of a business, goes almost entirely unnoticed by the general public. If it comes to unemployment if it speaks in general terms as a result of the economic crisis and never in our particular situation. Unions show their weakness going negotiations for a maximum of economic incentives, but are unlikely to maintain employment. ISF We are individualists, resigned and was unable to affect the trade unions, on the Farmindustria or state authorities or health.
is time to react. This state of affairs is no longer tolerable. In Italy there are two national trade associations and several autonomous provincial associations. So we just divided demonstration of weakness. The AIISF took the occasion of the Forum of Associations, which was held in Bologna on September 12, to contact Federisf and independent groups present. We are all agreed to start a process leading to the unification of all associations within the spring. The problems and goals are common to all. United we are a bit 'less weak, hoping to be a center of attraction for all ISF Italian, we can speak more strongly and effectively in defense of the whole class. It will then make
that the authorities take note of this situation and take action to declare a crisis in the sector and encourage the conditions so that it would set up alternative work-related skills. Be necessary to maintain employment and will also need to redesign the Legislative Decree 219, which penalizes us just in work, and rules that guarantee the highest possible professionalism guided by the ethics and transparency of the ISF to ensure that they summarize what ISF role of scientific information on drugs that is useful to both the doctor and patient.
Angelo Dazzi
