last update 2021-09-17

Field Studies

has especially in the area of health systems, a tendacy to be seen as negative.   

Although field studies are basically created for scientific purposes and performed to increase the safety of the use of drugs and health products, they are often seen as a marketing instrument because regularly the insurers pay for the use of the screened drug.  

This trend of a wrong judgement is regularly not based on wrong doings or mistakes of the industry - it is caused by system relevant mistrust, for example then, when politicians like to give more competence to insurers and this insurer tries to figure out any way how to save money from reimbursement. The enhancement of the competency of insurers in the health systems always increase problems like this - and vice versa the health industry always has the ungrateful job to defend themselves.

Different

The continuing refinement of laws for studies and field studies lead not only to stricter rules, they also lead doctors into a position where they think it is not only possible to count on the medical results of studies, but also on the medical results as a reason for legal security for the prescription of drugs and medical devices.  

The proof of a positive relation between the effect and risk before and after the registration of drugs, medical devices and medical products is not only wanted by politicians - this proof provides protection and safety at the same time and is therefore the perfect reason for decisions which doctors have to make before the use of any medical product.
 
The fact that doctors and health industry work together with the goal to find epidemiologic data irritated nobody.  But the fact that for this reason patients need not only to be treated but the treatment needs to be documented and justified and the performance from the doctor to do this has to be paid, contradicts the interest of different groups within the health system which has different motivation.

The lawmakers in all countries would be easily able to disrupt this controversial discussion with a decision which makes the insurance companies pay for the doctor’s performance within field studies. But neither the lawmakers nor the insured people see logical reasons to support this idea as long as health industry is willing to pay this safety related cost.  The alternative idea to renounce those field studies would lead - what is common for many alternatives - to more risks and less safety.  This alternative would only be able to satisfy ideologists.

With our offensive handling of the whole concept of field studies, we set signs for many field studies and the included products.  The creating of the perfect structure and the use of a positive image of field studies is for us equally important to the planning, implementation and utilization of the results.  
 
You profit from the difference.