Reduce Health Costs--Ban Pharma Ads

[yellowwood]

Have you noticed how many pharmaceutical ads there are on television? The cost of those ads must be huge, and they must work for the pharmaceutical companies or they wouldn't have so many. Of course, those costs are passed onto us since many of these drugs are paid for by insurance or tax-supported programs.
What sense does it make for a patient to ask for a drug, since he knows nothing about it? And why do physicians comply with patients' requests. Can't they make their own decisions?
And there are so many warnings with most drugs. Obviously we are paying for treating the negative reactions, too.
Taking these ads off the air would be the first improvement that should be made in health programs.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Spending on marketing far outpaces research despite what they tell you

We always laugh when these ads have something in them like "Be sure to tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver disease"

NO - your doctor tells YOU if you have kidney or liver disease, not the reverse!

[sailor65]

2. You can start with those damn bathtubs n/t

[MercutioATC]

3. There are multiple drugs available for a given medical issue.

I have GERD (acid reflux). There are at least a half-dozen prescription drugs that can be used to treat GERD, and different people have different rates of success with different drugs.

Why is it a problem that manufacturers make the public aware of the different prescription drugs available?

[yellowwood]

9. I Understand

But how can one decide the quality of a drug from an ad? No more than you can decide which cereal is best from an ad--Cheerios vs. Total, for instance. They all make health claims. A person still has to read the label.
Now, I have to assume that physicians know more about drugs than their patients. They certainly have more access to information. For one thing, they are bombareded with sales pitches. When they read the labels, hopefully, they understand them. Patients really don't.

[MercutioATC]

11. Agreed

But there ARE patients that are involved in their own health and treatment who ask their doctors about options like specific medications.

I just don't see a reason to prohibit drug companies from advertising.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Nobody is trying to prevent the information from being available

A few clicks on the Internet will give access to information, both reliable and unreliable. In the UK (where prescription drug advertising is banned), the 'Formulary' book about prescription drugs, used by doctors, is also available to members of the public.

However, the purpose of an ad is to push one treatment over others, and to do so in the space of a few 'sound bytes'. Our health is too important to be reduced to this sort of sound byte. And it is difficult for people not to be influenced by such 'spin' - after all, it's the purpose of advertising.

[MercutioATC]

13. I see it as just more nanny-state silliness.

I really don't believe we need to be sheltered from this.

[drm604]

15. It used to be illegal.

Did we live in a nanny-state then? Somehow I don't feel like these ads have freed me in some way.

[JHB]

25. So many people for get that, about a great many things

If you described our economy under Eisenhower or Kennedy without naming the country or time, it's heartbreaking how many people leap to the word "socialism".

"So you're saying were actually were communists back in the 50s? Then what was our beef with the Russians?"

[SOS]

21. Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research, Study Finds

"A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion
as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

They waste $33 billion a year on promotion.

Wouldn't that $33 billion be better spent on cancer research?

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

28. True of most industries

Marketing is how you attempt to ensure recovery of R&D investment before the product exceeds its shelf-life.

The sad truth is that there are limits to the value that can be generated with R&D without marketing to drive revenue. This is true in almost every single industry, hence why marketing expenses almost always exceed R&D expenses; without the marketing there would be no revenue to do R&D at all. Even the spiffiest of products don't sell themselves.

[LeftishBrit]

23. It's a 'nanny state' if advertisers can't scam you over your health?

Restricting the adverts is NOT stopping you from getting info about the drugs in question. If you don't want to rely on doctors for all the info - then go on the Internet. Go to the library. Read up on it properly. I've never had a problem in getting hold of info that's much more reliable than some advert on the box could be.

There is NO way that an advertiser is going to give you accurate info in a short sound-byte. Just one more way for pharma companies to make a profit at the expense of the patients (and if you read my posts on the forum in general, you will know I don't knee-jerk about all that's provided by pharma being bad, but once they get in the advertising trade, the conflict of interest between reliable info and profit becomes to great.)

[MercutioATC]

29. There are existing laws against "scamming". That's not the issue here.

At issue is whether we should legally prohibit drug companies from advertising their products...something we don't do for other businesses.

[JHB]

30. We already legally regulate their sales...

...since we're talking about prescription drugs: transactions without a valid prescription are illegal.

[MercutioATC]

31. Almost all sales are subject to some type of legal regulation.

However, almost all companies are to use any media they wish to advertise.

[laughingliberal]

24. Perhaps because prescribing should be left in the hands of the physician?

What you say about different people reacting differently to various medications is true. But is a television ad really the way to differentiate that?

[MercutioATC]

32. Of course it should.

That has no bearing on whether or not drug companies should have the right to advertise to consumers.

[eShirl]

4. yes! this should be a no-brainer

[leveymg]

5. Agreed. Just go back to the previous law.

[FormerDittoHead]

8. Yes. It can be done. What's advertised on radio/TV can be regulated. It's true! n/t

[leveymg]

14. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, while we're at it.

Would be a counterweight to the upcoming SCOTUS decision that's probably going to rule that the gov't can't infringe on coporate right of speech in politics.

[ThatsMyBarack]

17. I used to think so.

Unfortunately, it seems the PTB just don't want to.

[Vinca]

6. Money aside, the ads should be banned because Joe the Wingnut

who can barely read should not be running to his doctor begging for a drug he saw advertised on television in between rounds of the WWF. The doctor, on the other hand, should not be allowed to take gifts or receive continuing education from big pharma.

[raccoon]

7. Also mucho pharma ads in magazines. In an issue of Reader's Digest I counted 10. nt

[mopinko]

10. they'll just find other avenues. they will waste more of my docs time.

imho, the evils of these ads are vastly overrated. they have helped make it acceptable to take psyche meds, and yes, those bathtubs have helped a lot of people get a normal sex life back. poopoo that if you want, but i bet you have one.
at any rate, they will find a way to sell their wares. wares that have made a world of difference for a lot of people.

[drm604]

16. This is a bit off subject but I've seen bathtubs mentioned a couple of times in this thread

and I have no idea what people are talking about. Bathtubs? :shrug:

[mopinko]

18. cialis

no juicier topic than boner pills. from those that don't need them, of course.

[drm604]

19. "Bathtubs" means "Cialis"?

I'm still confused.

[mopinko]

20. you must not watch much teevee.

it's in all their ads. and it is a dumb, dumb, dumb piece of attempted visual communication. the couple is in 2 separate clawfoot bathtubs, which are sitting in the most improbably locations.
it is the stupidity of it that has made an impression on people.

[drm604]

22. I watch lots of tv. Too much really,

but I haven't seen that.

[yellowwood]

26. Pills for Non-illnesses

I believe that these ads also promote treatment for issues that aren't really illnesses and can be coped with without medication. For instance, who has not felt sad sometimes. Yet I see so many ads for anti-depressants. I wonder if people are encouraged to think of sadness as a clinical problem when it's just a byproduct of life.
Also, some problems could be better coped with by different eating habits, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I hope you're not implying that depression isn't a real illness?

I am sure that one of the side effects of pharma advertising *can* be people thinking that there is a pill for all everyday problems - but that doesn't mean that real clinical depression is just a 'byproduct of life'.

[PA Democrat]

27. They are banned in every other developed country except for the US and New Zealand.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Direct-to-consumer_advertising

[LeftishBrit]

34. Good point.

[Earth_First]

35. BAN BIG PHARMA ADS?!!!!!

Big Pharma was just granted the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to run their own political ads supporting/endorsing candidates for poitical office!!!

GAME OVER, DUDE!

[amborin]

36. a small minority of physicians have shilled for Big Pharma; isn't there now a disclosure law? n/t