I’ve previously written that direct to consumer drug advertising should be banned, similar to the rest of the world, except for New Zealand.
The main reason reason is that many of the advertised products are for expensive, brand name drugs that have little advantage over their generic counterparts.
In a New York Times’ Room for Debate post on the issue, various viewpoints are presented. I find myself agreeing with internist Jerry Avorn, who writes, “Doctors spend precious minutes of ever-shorter office visits explaining to patients why their cholesterol drug is every bit as good as the one they saw on television, or why feeling sad at the death of a loved one doesn’t require an antidepressant. Hawking medications to the public encourages rapid adoption of new products that may be no better — or even worse — than older, unadvertised generic drugs.”
But, as Dr. Avorn points out, it’s unlikely a ban will ever happen. Instead, he calls for better FDA regulation of such ads, where the risks and benefits of the advertised drugs are more clearly publicized. But with the marketing budget of the pharmaceutical industry dwarfing the funds of the FDA, it’s going to be an uphill battle.
Related posts:
- Are the Olympics going to affect prescription drug supply?
- Prescription drug abuse
- House Passes Prescription Drug Imports Bill
- Does e-prescribing save prescription drug costs?
- Cutting back on prescription drugs
- Prescription medication pay for performance, and the rationale behind it
- The waning effect of direct to consumer drug advertising
{ 6 comments }
Consumer drug ads can be misleading in a very subtle way, to escape FDA’s scrutiny. For example the pain pill which takes care of the pain so good that the grandfather is now lifting his grandkids high up in the air. The depression pill which makes the actor in the ad, the happiest person on the earth. The cholesterol pill which not only reduces your cholesterol but also makes you look fit. We physicians all know this is not true. But the general population may perceive it as real effect, while nothing wrong has been spoken.
We also need some legislation in place to stop what is tantamount to bribing doctors to prescribe certain medications. An all expenses paid weekend in New York in exchange for sitting through a four hour long commercial? Paying practicing doctors to travel and give marketing talks to other doctors on medications? It’s all very immoral and is ruining our healthcare system.
“The rest of the world does it…” is usually a potent argument against a proposition.
Take note that Dr. Avorn, and his advocacy group, Prescription Project, suggest that the discussion with your doctor should focus on your doctors relationships with industry rather than substantive isues like their health! So the argument that time limitations fit when fighting DTC, but not when pushing the conflicts of interest agenda. Take a look: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702090.html
Thanks
There was a sound bite on CNN several years ago which said that in any given week, 80% of Americans took some prescription or over the counter medication. True or not? If so, that seems like an indicator of how much Americans think that drugs will solve their problems.
Don’t stop at meds. Let’s ban music, movies, books or even ideas that we disagree with too.
Comments on this entry are closed.