It's not often that we get to see the complete causal chain all wrapped up in one brief newspaper article, but USA Today managed it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-29-drugs-main_N.htm
At issue: a recent USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll that revealed that about a third of us go to "ask our doctor" after seeing a TV drug advertisement, and that 82% of those who ask end up with some prescription or other. Also, 29% reported not being able to fill a prescription sometime in the last 2 years because of cost; 23% had to cut pills in half or skip doses due to cost; and 41% of families have some sort of problem due to the cost of drugs.
The poll showed that slightly more than half of the "ask your doctor" crowd ended up with a prescription for a different drug than the one advertised. On the one hand, that sounds good, as if physicians might actually be wisely suggesting lower cost generic equivalents. On the other hand, we have to wonder if 82% of those who asked (by the way, up from 75% in a 2005 poll) truly needed a prescription medication for whatever their problem was--especially given the tendency of direct-to-consumer ads to persuade us over time that more and more of what we used to call normal living is actually a previously unknown disease and needs aggressive therapy with drugs.
DTC advertising, at one point thought to have peaked and to be on the downslope, obviously is highly effective in generating pharma revenue, and the article reports that spending on such ads in 2006 reached record levels of $4.8B.
The poll showed a 47-44% split of those having favorable and unfavorable views of the drug industry, respectively. Billy Tauzin, president of PhRMA, gamely argued that people don't really dislike the drug companies. Rather, they react with anger to the higher co-pays that insurance companies slap them with, and that makes them feel sour about the drug company. Presumably it's the insurers who are the rapacious bastards, not your friendly pharmaceutical industry. (In that he is no doubt right, but I'll let other bloggers on health reform take that up.)
So here we have the entire package deal. DTC ads are turning us into a nation of drugseekers, which enhances revenue for the industry, but also drives up the prices of drugs, which makes drugs less affordable for an increasing percentage of us.
Showing posts with label DTC; advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DTC; advertising. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Sunday, July 15, 2007
DTC Ads: Coming to a Europe Near You?
The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) has been tracking in its news columns the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and some of its supporters within the European Union to bring direct-to-consumer drug advertising to Europe. Currently only the U.S. and New Zealand allow such advertising, and I understand that New Zealand is seriously considering a ban.
In 2002, the European enterprise and health commissioners proposed to the EU parliament an expansion of the allowable health information that can be disseminated to the public from the industry. The parliament overwhelmingly rejected the proposal. The commissioners made no bones about their disappointment and apparently bided their time until they could reintroduce similar proposals. Some commentators believe that they chose this spring for two reasons--first, that only 25% of the current membership of the parliament is left from the previous vote in 2002; and second, that the members of parliament are about to stand for election and so appearing to be "pro-health" will stand them in good stead. By contrast, consumers organizations in Europe are lining up in opposition.
It is a sad commentary on the state of advertising in the U.S. that the rallying cry behind this effort to loosen the limitations in Europe is a solemn promise that the end result would not be the anything-goes frenzy now characterizing the American airwaves. The commissioners insist that all they want is more readily available health information for the consumer/patient. Their critics point out that this is basically a stealth campaign, as nowhere in the proposals are there any regulations that have sufficient teeth to prevent blatantly commercial messages from going out.
For their part, the enterprise commissioners make no secret of the reason that they support loosening the rules. They believe that the pharmaceutical industry in Europe is falling behind their U.S. and Japanese counterparts in profits, and they want their part of the world to be more competitive. It is hard to see why they believe that allowing more information on pharmaceuticals to reach the public will improve the competitiveness of the local industry, unless they envision messages that will have increased drug sales as a direct consequence.
Incidentally, you might wonder, if the U.S. and Japan are held up as the "ideally" profitable drug industry nations, but only the U.S. allows DTC advertising, then how does Japan come in? I understand through one report that Japan has some interesting loopholes that allow advertising practices that in some instances nearly mimic the U.S. For example, you cannot directly advertise prescription drugs in Japan, but if you are conducting a research trial, you are allowed to advertise for volunteers. Drug companies sponsoring studies of their products put out full page ads in popular newspapers and magazines that purport to be a call for research subjects, but where about 9/10 of the advertising copy actually extols the virtues of the drug.
In April, the commissioners reported their proposals for more liberal advertising policies, and the consumers' organizations bellowed back. It was not clear from the reports when a final vote can be expected.
Brown H. Sweetening the pill. Can big pharma be trusted to provide independent health information to patients? BMJ 334:664-6, 31 March 2007.
Moynihan R. Direct to consumer advertising should not come to Europe. BMJ 334:1025, 19 May 2007.
In 2002, the European enterprise and health commissioners proposed to the EU parliament an expansion of the allowable health information that can be disseminated to the public from the industry. The parliament overwhelmingly rejected the proposal. The commissioners made no bones about their disappointment and apparently bided their time until they could reintroduce similar proposals. Some commentators believe that they chose this spring for two reasons--first, that only 25% of the current membership of the parliament is left from the previous vote in 2002; and second, that the members of parliament are about to stand for election and so appearing to be "pro-health" will stand them in good stead. By contrast, consumers organizations in Europe are lining up in opposition.
It is a sad commentary on the state of advertising in the U.S. that the rallying cry behind this effort to loosen the limitations in Europe is a solemn promise that the end result would not be the anything-goes frenzy now characterizing the American airwaves. The commissioners insist that all they want is more readily available health information for the consumer/patient. Their critics point out that this is basically a stealth campaign, as nowhere in the proposals are there any regulations that have sufficient teeth to prevent blatantly commercial messages from going out.
For their part, the enterprise commissioners make no secret of the reason that they support loosening the rules. They believe that the pharmaceutical industry in Europe is falling behind their U.S. and Japanese counterparts in profits, and they want their part of the world to be more competitive. It is hard to see why they believe that allowing more information on pharmaceuticals to reach the public will improve the competitiveness of the local industry, unless they envision messages that will have increased drug sales as a direct consequence.
Incidentally, you might wonder, if the U.S. and Japan are held up as the "ideally" profitable drug industry nations, but only the U.S. allows DTC advertising, then how does Japan come in? I understand through one report that Japan has some interesting loopholes that allow advertising practices that in some instances nearly mimic the U.S. For example, you cannot directly advertise prescription drugs in Japan, but if you are conducting a research trial, you are allowed to advertise for volunteers. Drug companies sponsoring studies of their products put out full page ads in popular newspapers and magazines that purport to be a call for research subjects, but where about 9/10 of the advertising copy actually extols the virtues of the drug.
In April, the commissioners reported their proposals for more liberal advertising policies, and the consumers' organizations bellowed back. It was not clear from the reports when a final vote can be expected.
Brown H. Sweetening the pill. Can big pharma be trusted to provide independent health information to patients? BMJ 334:664-6, 31 March 2007.
Moynihan R. Direct to consumer advertising should not come to Europe. BMJ 334:1025, 19 May 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)