Remember the true motive of DTC drug ads

in Uncategorized | 17 responses

Bang on: “The reason those ads are there is to sell the drug, not to educate the public.”

Comments

noreen martin
The advertising of drugs on televsion should be outlawed. The doctor should have skipped pharmocology and just turned on the tv. Now the well informed patient walks into the doctor’s office and tells him or her what to prescribe.
We have become a drug society, meaning that we think that we can correct all our ill with the popping of pills. More time should be spent on prevention of diseases.
When was the last time that you saw an advertisement for diarrhea, heartburn, headache, gas, jock itch, that dreaded toe fungus, erectile dysfunction, the list goes on and on. What kind of message are we sending to our citizens, not to take responsibility for their health,to depend upon drugs?
If drugs were the solution to our nation’s ills, then we would be the healthiest nation on the planet, not #17, as we spend more money than any other nation.
Our concept on how to achieve health is flawed. Health can only be achieved by following natual laws. One cannot be medicated or vacinnationed into health.
Anonymous
We can’t be medicated into health? Surely you jest. Try telling that to someone with leukemia whose only shot at staying alive involves chemotherapy. Try telling that to parents in the Third World who’ve had their children die for lack of a measles vaccination. Vaccination *is* prevention, BTW.
I can’t argue that as a society, Americans rely far too heavily on a pill for every ill. But the solution is not to do away with all pharmaceutical tx.
Lyndal
Living in a country that DOES outlaw direct marketing of prescription medication to the public- I agree with you. If I prescribe an Ace inhibitor, I can prescribe the one with the best side efrfect profile, distribution data, efrficacy or whatever…not the one with the sexiest TV ad. Patients can still get drug information from pharmacies, internet etc but its information NOT ads. Needless to say the drug companies still advertise to docs, but we are probably better at sorting wheat from chaff–and the claims they can make are controlled by a strict code of conduct. I think it is the only way to go, and can’t imagine working in a society where the patients get “sold” a drug like a chocolate bar.
Lyndal (in Australia)
Anonymous
The insensitive, not to say heartless, comment by “Noreen Martin” is a good example of what is wrong with America. She laughingly minimizes the heartbreak and tragedy of toenail fungus, treating the millions who suffer from this hideous condition as nothing more than jokes.
One can only hope that she soon acquires this fungal infection. Let us see how funny she finds it as the organism spreads to her feet and ankles in its inexorable climb up her legs, insatiably feeding and literally eating her alive.
Fungi are not funny!
Josh
The reason those ads are there is to sell the drug. . .
Yeah and your point is? Last time i checked we lived in a free & capitlisitic society and the job of a co. is to make money. If you have a problem with that, then don’t take medicine. Refuse those beta-blockers and/or nitro when you’re having an MI. Oh wait, I forgot that there’s no socialist in an ER (ie no athesits in a foxhole). At the end of the day ‘big pharm’ is a company with a right to a profit b/c they sell a WORTHY product. (unlike herbal stores but i digress).
Secondly, I’d like to take objection to the oft’ claimed view that “patients come in requesting name brand drugs.” In all my experience i’ve never had a pt refuse a different med after i’ve explained my reasoning. DTC just gets pts in the door to talk to the doc, but they are rarely/never unwilling to work w/ me.
Third, I for one think the DTC does a better job of educating the public than the gov’t does. How much $$ does the gov’t throw around for health promotion/education? Too much for too little gain. ‘Big Pharm’ has a financial incenntive to effectively inform pts about DM/ED/CAD or what ever. The left is just upset b/c is working.
Anonymous
Noreen, you are either very young or very unimformed. How can you possibly think that people don’t buy health with vaccines? I hope you don’t have children and that you aren’t one of those parents witholding vaccines to your children.
jb
It’s oh so much fun to demonize Big Pharma for, horrors, trying to make a profit. All you docs out there who feel virtuous, yea, godlike, for writing a Rx for cephalexin, or propranolol, or whatever generic that gets you that much closer to heaven- where did these come from? They came from Big Pharma. Today’s exalted generic is yesterday’s overpriced, me-too, heavily marketed product of those demon drug companies. Any or all of you are entirely free to get a few billion dollars together, start a new drug company. Hire a few dozen PhDs, lawyers to get you through the FDA and the post marketing lawsuits, publicize the new agent through the blogosphere, and sell the pills for a dime apiece. (You will have to ignore the wailing of the folks who then criticize you for selling for a dime because of all the people who live on less than a dollar a day in “developing” [what is it that they are developing?] countries who can’t afford even the dime).
Everyone out there is an expert on how drug companies should run their businesses. They spend too much on marketing, they concentrate on me-too drugs instead of innovation, they focus of profits instead of people, they are just so damn big and capitalist and successful. See paragraph above. Any doc who lets a patient bully her into prescribing an advertised drug that is not indicated should give up her license. My own universally successful response to a patient’s request is to gently remind the patient that “It’s TV.” Those commercials are as truthful as the ones which promise a date with the Swedish Bikini Team for anyone who drinks the right beer.
Big Pharma is no better and no worse than any other big industry, except that their products actually do save lives, improve our lives, and actually decrease healthcare costs. If you want to find another industry to attack, fine. Some misguided fools attack fast food, the gun industry, sports, whatever. Do you really want to live in a country where drug innovation stopped in 1970, or pick any date? That’s what you want to burden our children with.
Anonymous
As a pharmaceutical formulator, I have often dealt with questions from friends and family regarding the practices of “big pharma”. While pharmaceutical companies develop things to help people, it is important to remember that they are first of all a business. There is no Hippocratic Oath taken by their management or their scientists, although I am fairly confident that at least the scientists have a genuine interest in helping people.
While prices may seem high to consumers, people generally have no idea how much time and money go into development. Consider the efforts that go into discovery, delivery, and Phases I-III trials prior to filing. Then you have a limited patent lifetime in which to recoup your development costs as well as bringing in revenue for new research.
Sure, things with “big pharma” aren’t perfect. DTC ads are about marketing, but maybe they are encouraging patients to engage in their health care a little more than just taking what their doctor prescribes. Like other commenters have said, docs can always offer other options.
Anonymous
“While prices may seem high to consumers, people generally have no idea how much time and money go into development. Consider the efforts that go into discovery, delivery, and Phases I-III trials prior to filing. Then you have a limited patent lifetime in which to recoup your development costs as well as bringing in revenue for new research.”
Oh please the fact is the pharm industry spends more on marketing than R and D. You know that better than I at least be honest about it in a public setting.
jb: I was an academic molecular biologist before going to med school. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that many (if not most) of the truly independant great leaps forward in science/medicine were not done by the pharm industry but rather by scientist’s (and medical doctor’s) who where working off government (ie NIH) grants. The pharmaceutical industry then capitalized off of these inventions/advancement of thought process.
jb
Anon 1028: Your post is absolutely true, and completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. It may be true that more is spent on marketing than R&D. Your point? All large corporations have executives who determine how best to spend their resources. This much for payroll, this for R&D, this for marketing, that for everything else. As a former academic molecular biologist and current physician, your CV reveals no education, training, or experience in corporate management. I’m satisfied to leave the decisions concerning how to allocate corporate resources to the people who are paid to do that. If they do it well, the company will prosper, and we will get new effective medications to prescribe (not to mention corporate targets to criticize). If they fail, the company will go bankrupt and they will be out of their jobs. That should motivate them adequately
I agree that many “independent great leaps forward” (curious phrasing, comrade) are achieved by people working off government grants. That actually proves my point. Academics do not have to prove themselves in the marketplace, and can delude themselves that they are doing the real important work and all the rest of the folks out there are doing nonessential busywork. When the guys in the lab come up with great discoveries, it does no one any good until it reached the marketplace. The end product of the basic research you describe has been funded by the “risk capital” of the American taxpayer (NIH grants and such). Getting that product to the local Walgreen’s is where the true risk capital comes into play- the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars that may or may not be successful. Not to mention that the drug may fail in the marketplace due to any number of reasons. This requires true risk capital, and there must be a reasonable chance of paying off in the future for that risk capital to be available.
Capitalism is sloppy, inefficient, and maddening to everyone who “knows” that they have a better way to run a society. Spending other peoples’ money is lots of fun, and leads to further self-congratulatory behavior as is shown above (We made the real discovery, not you!). I am reluctant to tamper with a system that has provided us with so much benefit. It’s not perfect, and if you really believe that you have a better way to develop and market pharmaceuticals, our system makes it possible for you to test your business model in the marketplace. There seems to be a nearly unlimited number of people who believe that they can do a better job running a drug company than Pfizer, Glaxo, and the rest. Given your large number, each would have to invest a relatively small amount to make this new company viable, and a worthy competitor to the established companies. How about putting your money where your mouths are?
Josh
MEGA dittos to JP!
– formulator –
Anon 1028: I never stated that pharmaceutical companies spend more on R&D than marketing. You completely missed my point. They are businesses, and how do businesses make money? Selling product. How does a business sell more product? Advertising. Again, it’s not a perfect system but I have yet to see a better suggestion.
Marketing not only helps recoup the costs of R&D and funds new research, but also pays for manufacturing operations and other day-to-day expenses. Grant-funded research may bring about more important discoveries, but your academics still need someone to put their new drug into a form that can be mass-produced and distributed in a global market.
Anonymous
You guys have got to be kidding me
The pharm industry is sucking off the government tit are you blind. What the hell do you think medicare D is? One giant scheme to make a crap load of money off a captive population. If the feds wanted a truly cost cutting measure they would have modeled after the VA national purchasing program. But hey pharm gave money to Bush et al and voila a big kickback ensues. Good for phram bad for doctors, patients, and the US gov. Please do tell me how much “original research” goes into me-too drugs? Thanks jb but unlike you I have seen firsthand (ie. I have worked with pharm company’s). Just how many PPI’s do we need already. We already have 5-6 (or is it more now I have to break out my pharmacopia ) THAT DO THE SAME THING. The whole industry is riddled with me-too drugs that have minimal if any differences.
” How does a business sell more product? Advertising. Again, it’s not a perfect system but I have yet to see a better suggestion.”
And who is qualified to make the call whether one me-too drug is any better than another? the patient? Have they read the peer-reviewd articles. No…all they have seen is your slick (and often misleading advertising). My suggestion is easy. Ban advertising DTC advertising on prescription meds to consumers. Let the DOCTOR make the call not some clueless marketing type who can make the “prettiest” commmercial that turns on the masses. Speaking of capitalism…let drugs stand on their merit and not their advertising. My practice long ago banned pharm reps. Why? Because for the most part they were clueless business types who had no understanding of pharmacology let alone rigorous peer-reviewed analysis comparison of drugs of the same class. They would just show up with lunch, trinkets, and the latest company biased shit stating how great their product was in relation to me-too drug B. Half the stuff was misleading the other half wrong. Let the doctors, make the call, let the company scientist’s and production workers get good compensation and cut out the leaches in marketing who do no more than perpetuate their own jobs.
PS: For all of your statements about how great our pharm industry think about all of the European drug company’s that have thived. Read off the list off your top prescription meds. Half of the company’s are European. Good night time to go take my PPI MADE IN SWEDEN.
noreen martin
Actually, if you will reread what I said, I did not say it in a joking manner as I would think that a toe fungus would be dreaded and painfull. Yes, I probably would not give children contaminated vacinnes such as the Swine flu was or how about 10 million American children who were given, known contaminated SV-40 polio vaccines in the late 1950 and early 1960′s. We still have form of mercury and other harmful ingredients in children’s vaccines which many believe is why our autism rate is so high in this country. Of course, most physicians nor the pharmaceutical industry will admit to this.
Anonymous
“We still have form of mercury and other harmful ingredients in children’s vaccines which many believe is why our autism rate is so high in this country”
Please do show ONE NON-BIASED STUDY that supports this argument. NOT ONE SINGLE STUDY SUPPORTS YOUR STATEMENT. My son believe’s in Santa Claus. Doesn’t mean he exists.
idiot.
Anonymous
so is there or is there not caffeine in cocoa beans?
Lily
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.