I share your objection to these advertisements. Doctors, patients and the public all pay a price for the advertising campaigns. It is not just that we must pay extra for the medications we purchase from those companies to subsidize their advertising costs. Beyond that, the cost of our health insurance necesarily must rise to cover the utilization of costly meds by other members of the same plans (so many of which are not truly necessary). We also share in the costs of the complications experienced by patients who have side effects of medications whose benefits were never entirely clear. Vioxx is a superb example.

If stringent (and most likely laborious) regulation could be enforced to keep the adverts tamely informative and not bizarrely promotional, I would consider supporting such a policy. For those people sympathetic to the drug companies’ need to satisfy their stockholders with better profits, I think the true profit implications of restricting advertisements by ALL competing pharmaceutical companies are not so clear. But it is certainly the case that if 3 companies advertise and the 4th does not, the 4th is at a terrible economic disadvantage.

Stef

Nobody is holding a gun to the doctor or patient’s head telling them they have to buy the product. Many products are advertised on TV that make rediculous claims but do not have to add fair balance like pharmaceutical company ads. Infomericals abound where products are peddled but with little or no policing. We have the FDA, DDMAC, advocate groups, medical societies, consumers, and the physicians. There are plenty of safeguards in place that allow for drug ads to stay on TV. There is no need for removal. The get patients into a doctors office and this physicians should love.

You also make the argument that since tobacco was taken off the air so should drug ads. The premise of your argument is that tobacco is bad for you, causes an addiction, causes cancer, can influence young children to start even worse drugs, and causes an unnecessary burden on the healthcare industry. This I agree with completely and tobacco should not be advertised for those reasons. However, the analogy cannot be used for FDA approved medications. Unlike tobacco, these medications have been proven through years of rigorous testing to be safe and effective for their intended uses. There is a health benefit and with any medication some risk. There is no health benefit to smoking. You lost big points with me on this flawed logic.

You mention that drug advertising results in more costly prescriptions. Drug advertising is but a small percentage of the total expense to bring a product to the market and just like any oter product sold to the market it must be advertised if it is to reach it’s targeted market. The problem exisits when patients and phsycians use these medications for purposes that were not intended. This can cause dangerous side effects and inflate healthcare costs.

You also mention that Vioxx should only been written when a generic drug caused gastirc side effects. I would guess you would also think the same for Bextra. I pay for my own managed care and I am quite educated on the newest advances in medicine. Since I am the end user, I understand the risk, and I end up paying the bill I wanted Bextra when I had a back injury. You failed to mention the quality of life increase of the products when i needed only one Bextra to help me control my back pain and tylenol, ibuprofin, and naproxin couldn’t touch my pain. I pay for quality healthcare and I want it. If I got hurt from Bextra then it would have been my fault but I knew the risks.

Why doesn’t anyone tell the real truth about academic institutions that typically won’t use a new branded product because they haven’t been paid off to do studies? What would really lower the cost of medicines is if all the doctors in acadmia stopped taking so many bribes from pharma, do a bogus evaluation and call it study.

Docto’sshould embrace DTC advetsing giving them the opportunity to open dialogue about a potneital serious problem. Your societies should coach physicians on how to work with patients to express their issues after requesting a product seen on TV rather then fight their existence altogether. Physcians could ask questions like, What most intrigued you about the AD? Why? How long have you had these problems? Why did the AD make you think of it? Any family history of this problem? etc.

I will conclude with one more topic. Instead of totally figting to remove drugs ads from TV why not work with manufacturers, government, patient groups, physician groups, and consumers on how to make these ads, and doctor’s responses to them, better.

Greg
Dallas, TX

In the off chance that the law you suggest won’t pass a constitutional test I suggest the following. Require drug manufacturers to sell every medication in identical form, shape, size and color, and further require that these medications be sold at the same price, and with no labeling whatsoever. This entirely removes the possibility of “advertising” either directly to the consumer or to the doctor, and would be equally fair to everyone.

There, that oughtta do it.

Here’s an easy solution: Congress should amend the patent laws to only provide patent protection to drugs that are not advertized. Pharmacutical companies will then have a choice: either accept the benefits of patent protection, or attempt to gain the benefits of brand recognition–but not both.

When these companies are fortunate enough to get a product to market, they have a limited amount of time to try to earn revenue from their research efforts. When that time is up and generic competition comes in, the product will be virtually free.

Unlike a government funded institution, like the University of Alabama, a private company needs to produce something of value to “earn” revenue so that it might continue to exist. I would rather pay private companies a little more than pay higher takes to support Government research organizatons who simply “take” what they want from taxpapers regardless of whether they have done or ever will do anything to earn it.

Here’s an easy solution: Congress should amend the patent laws to only provide patent protection to drugs that are not advertized. Pharmacutical companies will then have a choice: either accept the benefits of patent protection, or attempt to gain the benefits of brand recognition–but not both.

You inspired a posting on my blog — http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness

Your sister,
Elana