Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Why Direct-To-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising Should Be Banned
FYI: But when time is short, more time can seem attractive - more time to spend with loved ones, to see beautiful places, and enjoy favorite past-times. Sadly, those end-of-life experiences are often clouded by pain and disability. My mother had difficulty working in her garden. Even the oxygen tank we toted out there didn’t allow her to do much more than examine the blooms. We would have jumped at anything to give her more strength and more time. Regards, Ted https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/why-direct-to-consumer-pharmaceutical-advertising-should-be-banned
I agree, these things should be banned. Pharma says drugs are expensive due to R&D, but no, it's due to the incentives, discounts, and insane costly slickly-produced marketing of their products. (I think it was the NYT that did a piece earlier this year about how even 'drug discount' plans from the industry are intended to keep costs high.)
I heard one on the radio the other day that pretty much said if you have "one or more" (note the 'or') symptoms, "talk to your doctor if XXX is right for you." The symptoms, any one of which they said you should be concerned about? Gas, constipation, upset stomach, etc. I feel sorry for GPs who have to field questions from such gullible people.
Frankly you have to wonder how many people even make it through the litnany of disclosures in these ads. They're more a public disclosure of side effects with feel-good imagery than anything else.
A somewhat cheap shot; the FDA does a lot of good work. But when big money comes into play (as with supplements that the FDA's barely allowed to regulate), the answer to the rhetorical question isn't so clear.
If they would only stop these during dinner hour I'd be happy. "Heartburn, diarrhea, indigestion, gas?" Just awful TV stuff. Then again, that's when we watch the news and it's not much better now.
Medicare for all. Stop the ads. "Can't trust Canadian drugs." Crap. I came home on a trip with antibiotics made in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The proprietor asked me first if I wanted US-made or Jordanian-made. Guess which one was way more expensive than the other? By the way, when I needed them, the Jordanian drugs worked just fine.
I'm sure one of our members can find a spot for the worst-taste Super Bowl ad for Opiod-Induced Constipation. Holy %@&**, what is the country coming to?
As a member of the pharma community there is so much that could be explored about pricing.
#1 Let's dispel with the phony cash goes for development of new drugs. Most of pharma doesn't do basic research. It too risky with little roi. During the '90's when pharma was raking in record profits in return we got lifestyle drugs and me too's. Lifestyle like Viagra and it's multiple knock-off's, bladder control products. And my favorite Proton Pump inhibitors. Prime example Omeprazole Prilosec-Nexium. When the patent was running out on Prilosec, Astra-Zeneca basic research worked real hard to purify out the active ingredient in Prilosec to create Nexium. They are mirror images. And the band played on... Just a social comment on these drugs: Perhaps if we stuffed less lava hot buffalo wings followed by deep dish pizza drowned by 2-6 lite beers we wouldn't need these drugs.
#2 (I don't want to sound like Andy Rooney but...) Why is the United States the only country that doesn't control drug prices. The US through Medicare, the Armed Services, the VA and other entities are pharma's biggest customer. Yet the seller's to the largest customer set the price and terms. OK marketing students whats wrong with this?
#3 Your local insurance carrier also is guilty of driving prices sky high. To succeed with a new product it must be on a carriers formulary. This is the approved list of drugs that your physician can prescribe for you condition. To get on a formulary the carrier tells the manufacturer how many lives it controls. (That's what your called at your carrier) The manufacturer set a minimum usage and offers a rebate for every prescription filled of the product. Who pays for the rebate?
That's the tip of the iceberg in prescription pricing.
I am skeptical of any ad that suggests I "ask my doctor if XYZ RX is right for me" when the use of this medication warns it may cause such things as dripping anus.
Remember when tobacco products were advertised everywhere in billboards, TV, magazines, and the coolness of Marlboro man. It took decades before their advertisement was banned.
There is too much lobby's money to keep the ads going for prescription drugs. Depressing!
I think it's worse than tobacco. AFAIK, tobacco ads were always permitted (like ads for pretty much anything else) until they were banned.
In contrast, drug ads were banned until 1985 when they were intentionally permitted. It got worse - in 1997 another restriction was relaxed. No longer did the drug companies have to give so many disclaimers and warnings that had made advertising impractical.
Drug companies spend lots of money on research; advertising research, customer/consumer research (ie, which pill packaging is the most enticing, etc), patent research, mini-feature research (ie, a tiny change in product, barely sufficient to patent, to be followed by extensive promotion of the "new" product at 10x the price of the original, capped off by quiet discontinuing of the (perfectly satisfactory) original product.) And on and on. Oh, they do support some "real" research, but mostly not in-house, and hence increasing their influence over the presumed "independent" researchers.
Unfortunately it is difficult with our current non-functional government it is hard to see how it will be possible to rein any of this in in the forseeable future.
As a member of the pharma community there is so much that could be explored about pricing.
#2 (I don't want to sound like Andy Rooney but...) Why is the United States the only country that doesn't control drug prices. The US through Medicare, the Armed Services, the VA and other entities are pharma's biggest customer. Yet the seller's to the largest customer set the price and terms. OK marketing students whats wrong with this?
At least as far as Medicare Part D is concerned, Congress prohibited the federal government from using its buying power to negotiate drug prices. Ironic that this prohibition came from the same crowd who say government should be run like a business.
A personal note - My doctor wanted me to take a particular one time medication instead of the insurance preferred one. I live about 30mi south of Canada. The doctor told me that, for just my own information, the same drug was $20 over-the-counter in Canada instead of prescription $200 in the US.
Comments
I agree, these things should be banned. Pharma says drugs are expensive due to R&D, but no, it's due to the incentives, discounts, and insane costly slickly-produced marketing of their products. (I think it was the NYT that did a piece earlier this year about how even 'drug discount' plans from the industry are intended to keep costs high.)
I heard one on the radio the other day that pretty much said if you have "one or more" (note the 'or') symptoms, "talk to your doctor if XXX is right for you." The symptoms, any one of which they said you should be concerned about? Gas, constipation, upset stomach, etc. I feel sorry for GPs who have to field questions from such gullible people.
Frankly you have to wonder how many people even make it through the litnany of disclosures in these ads. They're more a public disclosure of side effects with feel-good imagery than anything else.
I point that out whenever someone says you can't trust Canadian drugs since they're not approved by the FDA. Well, these ads are "approved" (i.e. allowed to run) by the FDA.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/PrescriptionDrugAdvertising/ucm076768.htm
Who is it that the FDA is really protecting?
A somewhat cheap shot; the FDA does a lot of good work. But when big money comes into play (as with supplements that the FDA's barely allowed to regulate), the answer to the rhetorical question isn't so clear.
#1 Let's dispel with the phony cash goes for development of new drugs. Most of pharma doesn't do basic research. It too risky with little roi. During the '90's when pharma was raking in record profits in return we got lifestyle drugs and me too's.
Lifestyle like Viagra and it's multiple knock-off's, bladder control products. And my favorite Proton Pump inhibitors.
Prime example Omeprazole Prilosec-Nexium. When the patent was running out on Prilosec, Astra-Zeneca basic research worked real hard to purify out the active ingredient in Prilosec to create Nexium. They are mirror images. And the band played on...
Just a social comment on these drugs: Perhaps if we stuffed less lava hot buffalo wings followed by deep dish pizza drowned by 2-6 lite beers we wouldn't need these drugs.
#2 (I don't want to sound like Andy Rooney but...) Why is the United States the only country that doesn't control drug prices. The US through Medicare, the Armed Services, the VA and other entities are pharma's biggest customer. Yet the seller's to the largest customer set the price and terms. OK marketing students whats wrong with this?
#3 Your local insurance carrier also is guilty of driving prices sky high. To succeed with a new product it must be on a carriers formulary. This is the approved list of drugs that your physician can prescribe for you condition. To get on a formulary the carrier tells the manufacturer how many lives it controls. (That's what your called at your carrier) The manufacturer set a minimum usage and offers a rebate for every prescription filled of the product. Who pays for the rebate?
That's the tip of the iceberg in prescription pricing.
I'll stick with my present ailments.
There is too much lobby's money to keep the ads going for prescription drugs. Depressing!
In contrast, drug ads were banned until 1985 when they were intentionally permitted. It got worse - in 1997 another restriction was relaxed. No longer did the drug companies have to give so many disclaimers and warnings that had made advertising impractical.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-040809/en/
Unfortunately it is difficult with our current non-functional government it is hard to see how it will be possible to rein any of this in in the forseeable future.
Most industry sectors are dirty in trying to gin up new business streams -- big pharma is one of the worst, IMHO.