Three Types Of Brand Name Loyalty Strategies Set Up By Drug Manufacturers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent restructuring of the pharmaceutical industry has led to three new types of promotional strategies to build patient loyalty to brand name drugs: loyalty through rebates, patient support, and compassion programs. Loyalty through rebates seeks to keep patients on a brand name drug and prevent their switch to the generic equivalent. Loyalty through patient support provides aftersales services to help and support patients (by phone or home visits) in order to improve adherence to their treatments. Finally, compassion programs offer patients access to drugs still awaiting regulatory approval or reimbursement by insurers. When and if the approval process is successful, the manufacturer puts an end to the compassion program and benefits from a significant cohort of patients already taking a very expensive drug for which reimbursement is assured. The impact of these programs on public policies and patients' rights raises numerous concerns, among which the direct access to patients and their health information by drug manufacturers and upward pressure on costs for drug insurance plans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".