http://www.medrants.com/archives/2418 Internal medicine, American health care, and especially medical education Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:15:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.medrants.com/archives/2418/comment-page-1#comment-525008 Recent Faves Tagged With "ama" : MyNetFaves Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:35:35 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2005/06/22/ama-joins-fight-on-tv-drug-ads/#comment-525008 [...] public links >> ama Hari minggu tapi keringetan ! First saved by motorpsycle | 6 days ago Comment on AMA joins fight on TV drug ads by Lily First saved by krizia174 | 10 days ago Ron!™ First saved by sailorstar1717 | 20 days ago [...] [...] public links >> ama Hari minggu tapi keringetan ! First saved by motorpsycle | 6 days ago Comment on AMA joins fight on TV drug ads by Lily First saved by krizia174 | 10 days ago Ron!™ First saved by sailorstar1717 | 20 days ago [...]

]]> http://www.medrants.com/archives/2418/comment-page-1#comment-523979 Dan Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:48:47 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2005/06/22/ama-joins-fight-on-tv-drug-ads/#comment-523979 Published on www.brainblogger.com Your Television Never Went To Medical School Often, usually on television, one viewing will often at times see an advertisement for some type of medication- usually one involved in a large market disease state. Such commercials are sponsored by typically large pharmaceutical corporations for particular networks on television. This is called direct to consumer advertising, and both doctors and citizens largely prefer that they do not exist. Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising, the popularity of the creation of such commercials has greatly increased. The pharmaceutical industry spends around 5 billion annually on this media source now. The industry ranks number two on their spending of media campaigns. Normally, the creation of such a commercial becomes visible to the consumer within a year of the drug’s approval, which raises safety concerns typically associated or possible with newer medications. The purpose of DTC ads are not education for the viewers, in my opinion, as others have claimed. Any advertising of any type shares the same objective- which is to increase sales and grow their market for a particular medication and, in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, believing upon research that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition suggested with such advertisements. Furthermore, the FDA has admitted that they are ignorant as far as the content of such DTC ads before they are presented to the public, in relation to their accuracy and clarity, as well as possibly their effect on the health care system. DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering. Disease mongering is the creation of what some believe to be medical flaws, and illustrated by the creators through exaggeration and embellishments through such media sources as an avenue for what appears to be propaganda often, as is often seen with DTC advertising. The content of the advertisements appear to be medically accurate, yet realistically they are in fact corporate creations of these questionable human ailments that do not or may not require treatment, possibly, and may be attempts by the makers of certain drugs to develop or embellish a particular medical condition to acquire additional profit. One of my favorite DTC advertisements is the new concept for the use of an anti-depressant for a social disorder. Social disorders appear to be another phrase for what are known as introverts- a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. And it is a personality trait, not a medical disease, many believe. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators of these commercials again wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is also baldness treatments advertised, as another example by the advertisers who attempt to create a need for treatment. Lifestyle medications are not treatment options for illnesses, and should not be portrayed as such in certain direct to consumer advertisements. Also, DTC ads discuss only one treatment option normally, so it seems, when likely there are several treatment options that exist for authentic medical disorders. The options for treatment should be left to the discretion of the health care provider, as they are the ones who assess your health, not your television or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not allow DTC advertising, with the exception of our country and New Zealand. Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professional remains largely unregulated, yet apparently effective for the creators of direct to consumer advertising. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Many, after viewing a DTC ad, seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes things cumbersome if not awkward for the health care provider chosen by the viewer of a DTC ad for such a visit. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative way, because most DTC ads require a prescription. Also, in some situations, the sponsor will speak and acquire a dormant/inactive actor, perhaps, or a former athletic celebrity, to fuel their intent. Medical information and claims of suggested health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world utilizing media outlets such as television. Perhaps this will save some over-prescribing that progressively has been occurring recently, which will benefit everyone in the long term. And the Health Care System can regain control of their purpose, which should be far from financial prosperity acquired by others. “Ignorance is not innocence but sin.” --- Robert Browning Dan Abshear Author’s note: What has been written was based on information and belief Published on http://www.brainblogger.com
Your Television Never Went To Medical School
Often, usually on television, one viewing will often at times see an advertisement for some type of medication- usually one involved in a large market disease state. Such commercials are sponsored by typically large pharmaceutical corporations for particular networks on television. This is called direct to consumer advertising, and both doctors and citizens largely prefer that they do not exist.
Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising, the popularity of the creation of such commercials has greatly increased. The pharmaceutical industry spends around 5 billion annually on this media source now. The industry ranks number two on their spending of media campaigns. Normally, the creation of such a commercial becomes visible to the consumer within a year of the drug’s approval, which raises safety concerns typically associated or possible with newer medications.
The purpose of DTC ads are not education for the viewers, in my opinion, as others have claimed. Any advertising of any type shares the same objective- which is to increase sales and grow their market for a particular medication and, in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, believing upon research that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition suggested with such advertisements. Furthermore, the FDA has admitted that they are ignorant as far as the content of such DTC ads before they are presented to the public, in relation to their accuracy and clarity, as well as possibly their effect on the health care system.
DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering.
Disease mongering is the creation of what some believe to be medical flaws, and illustrated by the creators through exaggeration and embellishments through such media sources as an avenue for what appears to be propaganda often, as is often seen with DTC advertising. The content of the advertisements appear to be medically accurate, yet realistically they are in fact corporate creations of these questionable human ailments that do not or may not require treatment, possibly, and may be attempts by the makers of certain drugs to develop or embellish a particular medical condition to acquire additional profit. One of my favorite DTC advertisements is the new concept for the use of an anti-depressant for a social disorder. Social disorders appear to be another phrase for what are known as introverts- a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. And it is a personality trait, not a medical disease, many believe. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators of these commercials again wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is also baldness treatments advertised, as another example by the advertisers who attempt to create a need for treatment. Lifestyle medications are not treatment options for illnesses, and should not be portrayed as such in certain direct to consumer advertisements.
Also, DTC ads discuss only one treatment option normally, so it seems, when likely there are several treatment options that exist for authentic medical disorders. The options for treatment should be left to the discretion of the health care provider, as they are the ones who assess your health, not your television or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not allow DTC advertising, with the exception of our country and New Zealand.
Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professional remains largely unregulated, yet apparently effective for the creators of direct to consumer advertising. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Many, after viewing a DTC ad, seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes things cumbersome if not awkward for the health care provider chosen by the viewer of a DTC ad for such a visit. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative way, because most DTC ads require a prescription. Also, in some situations, the sponsor will speak and acquire a dormant/inactive actor, perhaps, or a former athletic celebrity, to fuel their intent.
Medical information and claims of suggested health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world utilizing media outlets such as television. Perhaps this will save some over-prescribing that progressively has been occurring recently, which will benefit everyone in the long term. And the Health Care System can regain control of their purpose, which should be far from financial prosperity acquired by others.
“Ignorance is not innocence but sin.” — Robert Browning
Dan Abshear
Author’s note: What has been written was based on information and belief

]]> http://www.medrants.com/archives/2418/comment-page-1#comment-521091 Lily Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:39:12 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2005/06/22/ama-joins-fight-on-tv-drug-ads/#comment-521091 I’ve seen ads on TV for Caduet. It has two ingredients. One is Amlodipine and the other is Atorvastatin. With my RxDrugCard I can get 30 tablets of Amlodipine for $9 and 30 tablets of Simvastatin for $9. I’ll bet they are charging more than $18 for this new drug! The unthinking public is going to pressure their doctors into giving them something just because it’s new when something old or generic would do the job for cheaper. I’ve seen ads on TV for Caduet. It has two ingredients. One is Amlodipine and the other is Atorvastatin. With my RxDrugCard I can get 30 tablets of Amlodipine for $9 and 30 tablets of Simvastatin for $9. I’ll bet they are charging more than $18 for this new drug! The unthinking public is going to pressure their doctors into giving them something just because it’s new when something old or generic would do the job for cheaper.

]]> http://www.medrants.com/archives/2418/comment-page-1#comment-25268 J. R. Hildreth Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:22:00 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2005/06/22/ama-joins-fight-on-tv-drug-ads/#comment-25268 re: the AMA and Rx Drug consumer ads - I don't recall any effort on the part of the AMA to study physician and hospital advertising in all sorts of media and the liklihood of any adverse effects it might have on physician and hospital utilization and the resultant cost to the us all. Again, your position and that of the AMA basically shows pure ignorance and bias. Get your head out of your butt for once. re: the AMA and Rx Drug consumer ads – I don’t recall any effort on the part of the AMA to study physician and hospital advertising in all sorts of media and the liklihood of any adverse effects it might have on physician and hospital utilization and the resultant cost to the us all. Again, your position and that of the AMA basically shows pure ignorance and bias. Get your head out of your butt for once.

]]>