Classic post: The DTC debate

November 2004 – Why DTC drug advertising sucks:

If the majority of DTC marketing were based on sound evidence-based medical principles, I would be in strong favor of it. After all, the more information patients have at their disposal, the better.
However, this is simply not the case, as the evidence seems to always interfere with profits. All we see are countless ads for erectile dysfunction, Singulair for allergic rhinitis (a second-line medication), Nexium (which essentially is repackaged Prilosec OTC), and Celebrex (when an NSAID or Tylenol would suffice in the majority with osteoarthritis) to name a few. I won’t even get into Vioxx, which was relentlessly advertised before the realization of adverse cardiovascular data.

Comments

John J. Coupal
Isn’t it obvious that DTC advertising is directed at people with medical problems that (a) bother people a lot, and (b) sufferers want to take control of?
The drug manufacturers know that. They don’t DTC high blood pressure drugs: to treat a situation of which the patient may not even be aware.
The purpose of DTC advertising is to tell patients that a drug is available to help them and to encourage them into their doc’s office.
Then, it’s the doc’s role to tell them that a particuilar drug is not for them (and why). Of course, then the doc has to come up with an alternative. Maybe that’s why some docs don’t like DTC advertising!
RxPop
DTC (direct-to-consumer) Advertising is one of the most controversial practices the drug industry uses to market its various products.
Total spending on pharmaceutical promotion grew from $11.4 billion in 1996 to $29.9 billion in 2005. Although during that time spending on direct-to-consumer advertising increased by 330%, it made up only 14% of total promotional expenditures in 2005. Direct-to-consumer campaigns generally begin within a year after the approval of a product by the FDA.
Supporters of this form of advertising, which is banned in nearly almost all countries (excluding the United States and New Zealand) say it provides a real service to consumers, informing them of new drugs and alerting them to health problems they may be unaware of.
Critics feel this form of advertising promotes only the most expensive new blockbuster drugs, when older and cheaper versions of drugs might be just as effective, thus driving up overall health care costs, with much emphasis placed on the high costs of prescription drugs.
Aggressive promotion can pay off big time. Merck, maker of Vioxx, the most promoted drug, spent $161 million advertising it in 2000, and sales of Vioxx quadrupled to $1.5 billion.
In fact, Merck spent more advertising Vioxx, according to NIHCM (National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation), than the $125 million spent promoting Pepsi or the $146 million spent on Budweiser beer ads. It even came close to the $169 million spent promoting GM’s Saturn, the nation’s most advertised car.
The drug industry says its ads not only educate consumers but also prompt people who might otherwise go undiagnosed to see their doctors. Many doctors agree.
What’s your opinion as to whether or not prescription drug advertising costs are a direct reflection to the high costs of prescription drugs in the United States.

Classic post: The DTC debate

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels