Stanford Medical Center recently announced a new policy prohibiting doctors from accepting free drug samples or even small gifts from pharmaceutical sales representatives. On the heels of similar announcements from University of Pennsylvania and Yale, we think that Stanford’s action is in the best interest of both doctors and patients.

Physicians are well-paid individuals. Hence, it seems very improbable, if not entirely impossible, that they could be enticed into making unethical decisions concerning the health of patients. A lunch, a pen, a coffee mug or a sticky tape can rarely be expected to influence a physician’s decision about which medical regimen to prescribe — at least on a conscious level.

But it is the time, money and effort allocated to such activities by drug companies that makes one sit up and take notice. The drug industry directs 90 percent of their $21 billion marketing budget at physicians, including the sponsorship of an estimated 300,000 educational events. There are approximately 100,000 sales representatives pursuing about 120,000 pharmaceutical prescribers. According to a recent article published in the New York Times, the new policy would cost Stanford Medical Center and its employees millions of dollars per year in free meals and similar industry gifts.

The bottom line is: why would drug companies spend billions of dollars on marketing if it were not working? Even small gifts create a sense of obligation which is subtle but powerful. If a drug company is wining and dining seminar participants, it is unlikely they will criticize that company’s drug. Removing subconscious biases from the decision-making process would help doctors objectively make judgments about the appropriateness of drugs.

While concerns have arisen over whether the new policy will negatively affect the ease of obtaining information about drugs, we feel these considerations are not decisive. Having to pay for lunch with an industry representative isn’t a tremendous barrier to learning about a new drug. Physicians can still obtain information at conferences, which pharmaceutical companies can still arrange for as long as they don’t influence the speakers or content. The extent of another possible side affect, restriction on the ability of Stanford professors to pursue entrepreneurial ventures, remains to be seen.

Although Stanford’s policy change may not affect the pharmaceutical industry drastically, it’s only opportune to ponder about the response of pharmaceutical companies if the rejection of standard marketing practices becomes the norm. The industry may just find more subtle ways to get gifts out to doctors. Or they may appreciate the cost-cutting allowed by the decreased marketing expense and pass on some of the savings to consumers. Alternately, drug companies could increase research on drugs without blockbuster potential, or which address financially underprivileged customers. Though an unlikely possibility, such efforts in generating goodwill could possibly constitute a more effective marketing effort than the current strategy of buying lunches and pens for doctors.

We believe that Stanford’s policy of rejecting even small gifts is fair, appropriate and ethical. It demonstrates the leadership role that academic institutions ought to take in bringing transparency to the prescription drug industry. Universities are the breeding grounds of tomorrow’s physicians, and Stanford has taken the right step to attempting to ensure the highest ethical standards.