Are TV Pharmaceutical Ads Damaging? 383
trivialscene asks: "ABC News is carrying an article about a recently published study in the medical research journal Annals of Family Medicine which examined prime time television ads run by pharmaceutical companies. The researchers concluded that the generally ambiguous ads, which appeal almost entirely to emotion rather than fact, tend to confuse viewers. They also suggest that the ads may be creating problems at the doctor's office, as some people might become convinced they need a particular medication and insist on getting it, rather than leaving the decision to trained medical professionals. What do you think about the presence of drug advertisements on television?"
Not for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I hate ambiguous drug ads. (Score:3, Interesting)
If they say what the drug does, they also have to say what the side-effects are.
They are banned in Britain (Score:4, Interesting)
Our medical system is based on the principle that if for have something wrong with you, you see a doctor, and the doctor prescribes the right drug for it if one exists. Therefore, drug companies market to doctors, not to patients, which seems the most sensible way to do it - after all a drug company's spend on advertising is spread a lot less thinly if they only advertise to doctors.
Re:Ask your doctor about modding parent up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hate ambiguous drug ads. (Score:3, Interesting)
By stating the purpose of the drug, that "extra 5 seconds" suddenly turns into a full minute or two of small print being read to you. Not exactly what the advertisers want to be doing with their time/money.
Well the ad would be completely useless if they didn't name the drug, or give an at least vague indication of its purpose, and all the prescription medication ads I've seen do have that 20 second low-volume recitation of all the side effects, usually while showing a happy couple on a swingset or kayaking.
Which personally I love. The first such ad I recall was for Propecia, the hair growth pill, which contained the line "women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnent should not handle broken propecia tablets as serious birth defects may result". Whoa, that's nasty shit, I thought. I also like a lot of the anti-depression med ads, where they show some guy whose happy and enjoying life, while saying "may cause certain sexual side effects" -- meaning you become impotent, basically replacing your chemical-imbalance-induced depression with a real reason to be depressed.
Re:The way I see it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was on daily heartburn medication when I went on a low-carb diet. Haven't used it since. Apparently there were two things at work - the kinds of carbs I was eating spurred acid production, and the fats I was eating more of are harder to digest, so the acid being produced is being used for what it was supposed to be used for: digestion.
Now, I did lose a lot of weight, but the acid reflux disappeared within days after starting.
Re:marketing vs R&D (Score:3, Interesting)
Once they get on the market, they're only heavily advertised for a year or so.
The ads are also aimed less at the consumer and more at doctors; doctors are the ones that have to prescribe it, after all, so they have to learn about it before patients start asking about it. Otherwise the patients will think the doctor is uninformed.
The overall general effect on the more gullible consumers is that they can be happy, just like the people in the ads, if they take some pills! Soma for everybody!
Noticed in your sig you like Bill Hicks (Score:4, Interesting)
What exactly does a "pharmaceutical consulting group" do, anyway? Something good, like "Facilitate open communication between drug companies and doctors?" Or something bad like "Figure out how to push more drugs whether people need them or not?"
Re:marketing vs R&D (Score:3, Interesting)
First, riddle me this: When's the last time you saw an ugly rep? Most of those salesfolk we saw were women, cuties, 20s-30s. They brought the doctor and staff free lunch from the nearest Olive Garden or the like, and just sat around and shot the bull for the first half of lunch. Alway complimentary and agreeable, it was int'restin' that they all seemed to share any particular view that Doc would mention. So, the doctor gets a pretty young lady that hangs on his every word, brings him lunch, and is quick to agree with him.
The poor slob never stands a chance.
The second half of lunch is dedicated to the pitch. I've heard that most doctors will fall for the pretty-face routine darn near every time; you'll always see a Rx count bump up after these visits...
Used to work in this industry. (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire purpose of pharmaceutical sales at the doctor, clinic and hospital administration level is this: To abnormally influence the prescribing of drugs beyond what information is public by way of peer-reviewed scientific research. The drugs your doctors prescribe are sometimes influenced by how many pens, pads, lunches, dinners and other free crap are given to the physician and/or his staff. The drugs your insurance company covers are most influenced by what pharmaceutical company wines and dines the formulary administrators the most.
Physicians and administrators who participate in golf junkets, etc., are just as much to blame, but that doesn't remove the culpability of the pharmaceutical companies who know exactly what they're doing and are constantly pushing to be able to intrude even more in the treatment of a patient by way of these methods.
There are examples of egregious behavior at various levels of the pharmaceutical business ranging from minor nuisances to egregious breaches of ethics. One competing company's rep, while I was covering Mayo Clinic, got his company kicked out for six months by following a physician into his office WHILE the physician was seeing a patient... What was the rep's urgent matter? To deliver his canned sales pitch for his product. There have been pharmaceutical companies nailed for including large gifts in honorariums given to physicians for speaking on behalf of their products.
Mayo Clinic is one of the few institutions that has extremely strict rules... No pens, no pads, no papers, samples are signed in through a controlled process giving the rep very limited access to physicians. At the same time, they'll gladly throw up a banner for your product if you'll give them a huge research grant... While that's no guarantee that they'll bias the research in the pharma company's favor, human nature is such that money tends to drive a sense of obligation to the benefactor.
The advertisements have taken the Creationist approach to marketing... by appealing to the opinions and attitudes of the average, uninformed layperson. In doing so, they are still interfering in the process without really contributing anything of value that cannot be obtained by a physician who keeps up by reading the peer-reviewed journals on his or her own time... as a good physician will want to do. Physicians already have a motivation to do this research... it's called avoiding malpractice lawsuits.
Previously reputable pharmaceutical companies have stepped up and started direct advertising to consumers on television... It's getting worse and the cacophony of products being advertised by these companies creates a confusing atmosphere of insufficient information that does what exactly? The commercials don't begin by encouraging patients experiencing certain symptoms to go see their doctor and let them do their educated diagnoses. The ads begin by summarizing symptoms in a manner that creates a sort of confirmation bias, i.e. rattling off a barrage of symptoms, one of which might lead the viewer to suspect they need the drug... while ignoring the specific COMBINATION of symptoms that preclude a specific diagnosis. Then the ads encourage the patient who SUSPECTS they might have this problem not to go to the doctor and find out the proper course of treatment... but to "ask your doctor for".
They know what they're doing and even though I agree, simultaneously, in the principle of customer awareness... The ignorance of the average customer does not change the fact that it was the intention of the company to defraud and profit on the basis of that ignorance and therefore does not make the company any less responsible for doing so.
While I agree that medical science is a luxury and not a public utility, the health of a country's citizens does directly impact the nation's
Re:The way I see it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:marketing vs R&D (Score:2, Interesting)
In the insurance industry it is widely accepted that the commericals actually do more harm to the cost of prescription drugs. If you had never heard of Viagra but were instead given the generic, you wouldn't have a care in the world. Both have the same result, but in America name brands matter.
There was a study, 'If you got a pulse, You re sick - NY Times report' in the UK that found Americans to be sicker than thier fellows in the UK even though Americans live longer on average, a couple of months. The reason American doctors are obligated to say something is wrong and prescribe drugs.
Advertising and the cost of drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
But back to the subject of this comment: If they're spending more money advertising a pill than developing it, we're paying for them to advertise drugs to us that either we need because a doctor knows we do, or that we want because a commercial told us we do. I mean, what the hell is restless leg syndrome? OH MY GOD! I HAVE A SYNDROME!
Pharmaceutical companies, and medicine in general, have a rather special ability to jack up their prices almost at will. The industry is a complex controlled by a small handful of players who dan defy market economics and hand us a single proposition: "If you don't buy our services, you'll die." This isn't like the food industry, although ADM, "the supermarket to the world," is trying to make it happen. If caviar is through the roof, I'll do without. If the price of asparagus doubles, I'll buy string beans instead. But if my heart medicine is too expensive, I buy it or I fucking die.
And they're engaged in unnecessary activities, that dramatically increase costs, by marketing drugs to unqualified decision makers.
Only two countires in the world... (Score:3, Interesting)
In my view, there can't be ANY advertising which is less helpful than the pushing of prescription medicines on TV. I'd rather see our local prostitutes get air time.
Re:The way I see it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Oh, yeah, my cholesterol went from 205 to 174 in 4 months, and has stayed low ever since.
People treat their bodies poorly and then wonder why they don't feel good!
Re:The way I see it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I think it is safe to say that drug ads are not a good thing. There are a number of people who take a lot of heed in what is advertised to them. And then they feel that the drugs are something they need. Another thing it does is take away from generics, which, IMHO, are a fantastic alternative to name brand drugs - due to their price. I would say that there are a number of people who don't have a lot of means that are swayed to take Claratin over the generic that is cheaper.
As far as convincing your doctor you need a certain drug. I think a lot of people really need to remember - he is a medical professional, they are just his patient.
RonB
Re:The way I see it... (Score:1, Interesting)
The ads can create an artificial demand for the reason you cited. Doctors may be medical professionals, but they're not perfect, and are frequently busy. Sometimes it's easier just to write a 'scrip' for Claritin, it's not going to do any harm, and will get you on to your next patient.
Most (if not all) of the prescription drugs being advertised do not have a generic version available, but certainly, yes, generic alternative treatments may be available, and in some cases may be better. But rather than breaking out the PDR, the doc may just write the prescription - so in some cases generics (which are usually much cheaper) may get the shaft.
On the other hand, the one being advertised may be better.
Also, most importantly, frequently the drugs being advertised treat historically under treated conditions - erectile dysfunction, insomnia, depression, etc. The patient may not have even come through the door if not for the adverts.
I'm torn on whether they should continue to be allowed or not, I think for now the right approach is to crack down on these ambiguous ads. "Oh look, take Flometraxia, and you too can run in meadows, throw footballs and dance, dance, dance the night away! Ask your doctor!
Flometraxia may cause anal lesions, internal bleeding, projectile vomiting and shortness of breath. Should you experience these symptoms, take some more Flometraxia before consulting a physician
Re:marketing vs R&D (Score:5, Interesting)
If I can explain something in 2 minutes rather than spend 5 minutes ordering a drug or test, everyone wins. Of course, this does not always happen, and sometimes the picture is less than clear when I leave a room...but a little extra time spent talking seems to save a lot of time in the end.
Take, for example, the common scenario of the vomiting child. Parents worried, me busy...now I can simply say, "yup, your child is vomiting, we'll give some *insert expensive anti-vomiting medication* and an IV," or I can spend a few minutes explaining the WHO process of giving small amounts (1 tsp or so) of fluid every few minutes so that the child will not vomit, explain how to limit the diet a bit for the next couple of days, and let the parents ask a few questions. In the end, the medication and IV takes an hour+ to accomplish, or the parents spend 1/2 hour giving small amounts of fluid that add up quickly. Either way (usually) the child's mild dehydration gets treated...and with a little more talking up front, I save 1/2 hour down the line.
I am the first to admit physicians get lulled into a "drug for every disease" pattern, but the truth is, a little time, reassurance and education will solve the majority of problems. The trick is knowing which problems that approach won't solve...but that's why I went to med school in the first place (and a topic for another day).
Re:marketing vs R&D (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually what you have done is prove that the US pharma system is about the WORST that money can buy.
Pushing placebos and snake oil on an uneducated public is NOT the right way to fund R&D.
Even if most R&D in breakthrough drugs was funded privately, which it is NOT. Most private R&D is in copycat drugs which provide little or no medical benefit over existing drugs and are pursued as a way to bust through the monopoly positions our inane patent system creates for other pharma companies. Private R&D is devoted primarily to discovering drugs which can penetrate already established markets.
Your statement that the US is "lapping" the socialized world" is nonsensical; Unless you mean lapping it in terms of healthcare profits. It is definitely not lapping anyone except the 3rd world in terms of healthcare outcomes, either on a dollar per dollar basis or even in absolute terms.
Have you compared life spans or mortality rates recently?
Re:marketing vs R&D (Score:3, Interesting)
Good thing the AMA restricts the supply of doctors. What would we do without it?