![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 19:55:57
Doctors Debate Ban on Drug Ads, Associated Press, Sunday, June 17, 2001
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_2266.htmlThere's a piece here about the AMA arguing whether they should urge the govt to ban patient directed drug ads. I don't know what they ultimately decided.
Excerpts:
"The ads can undermine doctors' credibility, especially if a physician thinks an advertised drug isn't the best choice for a patient who demands it, said Dr. Angelo Agro of the AMA's New Jersey delegation, which drafted the proposal. ""Ads by their nature are biased and compressed, and driven more by drug companies' financial concerns than by concern for the patients' best interest, said Agro, an ear, nose and throat specialist from Voorhees, N.J."
What I like about this proposal is its pure nerve. Rather than be prepared to answer your questions about why you should/shouldn't use a particular drug they would rather prevent you from asking. I really fail to see how this preserves credibility. And of course the physician's information about new drugs tends to come from drug salesmen - in essence advertising. I think we might be better off letting the direct to consumer advertising continue and banning advertising to doctors.
From the same article:
"Several doctors told committee members that they like the ads since they may encourage patients who wouldn't otherwise seek needed medical attention to schedule a doctor's visit.""Psychiatrist Dr. Saul Levin said ads for antidepressants, for example, help take the stigma out of depression and may make sufferers realize they're not alone."
I'm curious. Has anybody here decided to see a doctor after seeing one of these ads? I have to admit that when I was in denial I was very good at it. I very determinedly ignored ads, magazine quizzes, and textbook descriptions as applying only to other people. Still, I wonder if seeing the ads night after night on television wouldn't eventually sink in. Has anybody ever been watching one of them and had that glimmer of recognition?
Jane
Posted by AKC on June 20, 2001, at 21:41:23
In reply to Drug company advertising to patients, posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 19:55:57
I'll probably get in trouble for something I will say here, but here goes!
I have always had mixed emotions about drug advertising. I have to agree with some of the points that were raised by some of the doctors you quoted. Some ads do raise awareness and lower stigma. But other ads appear to be there for no other purpose but pure profit. (Here comes the comment I should leave out). For instance - how many ads do we really need for Viagra! While I say that, I also have to admit, drug companies are for-profit companies - and it does take money to do other research. It has always been one big puzzle. Where the line should be drawn regarding this has always been fuzzy.
However, I don't find the doctors who complain about patients' demands for certain drugs too credible. A doctor, even in the time demand of managed care, should be willing to sit down with his or her patient and fully explain why a particular med is not appropriate when a patient is "demanding" it. Doesn't matter if the patient learned about it from an ad on TV, in a magazine, from a friend, on Psycho-Babble, etc. The solution to the doctor's problem is not doing away with the ads - the ads is not the problem.
My two cents, for whatever it is worth.
Posted by Sunnely on June 20, 2001, at 23:09:21
In reply to Drug company advertising to patients, posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 19:55:57
Hi Jane,
From a 1999 article on DTC:
A quiet revolution is taking place in the marketing of prescription drugs. Full-page color ads appear in many popular magazines, usually accompanied by a message that the product is available through the reader's doctor. TV and radio promotions are becoming more common. This type of advertising campaign, known as direct-to-consumer (DTC) is gaining momentum within the pharmaceutical industry.
A prominent stimulus in the growth of DTC marketing was the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to relax its guidelines regarding the promotion of prescription drugs. The FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997 is shaping new advertising policies. In 1997, the FDA permitted prescription drug advertising on TV and radio.
In the first 6 months of 1997, five of the largest pharmaceutical companies (Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Schering-Ploguh Corp.) spent over $100 million on TV advertisements for prescription drugs. The total budget for DTC advertising, including magazines, TV, newspapers and radio, approached $1 billion in 1997. And DTC spending was expected to double by the year 2000. Approximately 30 prescription products have been the topic of DTC consumer TV or radio ads to date (1999); allergy drugs account for the most.
THE WEB IS NOT IMMUNE
The internet is not immune to DTC. The internet is an attractive avenue for advertising, partly due to the relatively low cost of establishing a Web site. Consumers pay to read the information provided with their connect fees. In addition, there is the advantage of being able to reach a worldwide audience. However, since prescription drugs are not approved for the same uses in all countries, this raises questions about the benefits of www advertising.
WHAT DO PHYSICIANS THINK OF DTC ADVERTISING OF DRUGS?
According to the industry journal Pharmaceutical Executives, 61% of 5,000 physicians surveyed would like pharmaceutical manufacturers to either discontinue or decrease DTC advertising. This is not likely to happen for one simple reason: DTC advertising appears to work. It was reported that 31% of consumers who have seen a DTC advertisement asked their doctor about that specific medication - a strong argument for the industry to continue DTC marketing.
ABUSES OF DTC ADVERTISING
Since 1997, the FDA has sent 18 letters to manufacturers critizing their ads. The agency cited drug makers for minimizing or omitting risk information, using distracting visuals, incompletely communicating an indication or limitations of a drug's use, and including unsubstantiated superiority claims.
HOW DO CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM DTC ADVERTISING?
Since most consumers have no medical background, DTC advertising clearly has a goal of creating brand awareness. The best examples, like the Astra Internet site for Prilosec, also provide education. As many diseases are undertreated (high blood pressure, high cholesterol), one role of educational advertising is to prompt consumer to see the doctor, get tested and discuss options for treatment. This may benefit many people who otherwise might no consult a physician.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are still focusing their main promotional resources on physicians, who ultimately decide which medicine a patient receives. The amount of money currently spent on DTC advertising is only about 25% of the industry's total marketing budget. Nevertheless, the increase in DTC advertising repsents a departure from the traditional way prescription-only products are promoted. How the public responds remains to be seen.
Bottom line is, DTC works and most likely here to stay.
*****************************
> Doctors Debate Ban on Drug Ads, Associated Press, Sunday, June 17, 2001
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_2266.html
>
> There's a piece here about the AMA arguing whether they should urge the govt to ban patient directed drug ads. I don't know what they ultimately decided.
>
> Excerpts:
> "The ads can undermine doctors' credibility, especially if a physician thinks an advertised drug isn't the best choice for a patient who demands it, said Dr. Angelo Agro of the AMA's New Jersey delegation, which drafted the proposal. "
>
> "Ads by their nature are biased and compressed, and driven more by drug companies' financial concerns than by concern for the patients' best interest, said Agro, an ear, nose and throat specialist from Voorhees, N.J."
>
> What I like about this proposal is its pure nerve. Rather than be prepared to answer your questions about why you should/shouldn't use a particular drug they would rather prevent you from asking. I really fail to see how this preserves credibility. And of course the physician's information about new drugs tends to come from drug salesmen - in essence advertising. I think we might be better off letting the direct to consumer advertising continue and banning advertising to doctors.
>
> From the same article:
> "Several doctors told committee members that they like the ads since they may encourage patients who wouldn't otherwise seek needed medical attention to schedule a doctor's visit."
>
> "Psychiatrist Dr. Saul Levin said ads for antidepressants, for example, help take the stigma out of depression and may make sufferers realize they're not alone."
>
> I'm curious. Has anybody here decided to see a doctor after seeing one of these ads? I have to admit that when I was in denial I was very good at it. I very determinedly ignored ads, magazine quizzes, and textbook descriptions as applying only to other people. Still, I wonder if seeing the ads night after night on television wouldn't eventually sink in. Has anybody ever been watching one of them and had that glimmer of recognition?
>
> Jane
Posted by Jane D on June 22, 2001, at 23:39:55
In reply to DTC is probably here to stay. » Jane D, posted by Sunnely on June 20, 2001, at 23:09:21
> Bottom line is, DTC works and most likely here to stay.Yes. I'm sure it is. Thanks for the article. Where did it come from?
I still have mixed feelings about this. While I don't like the idea of anyone telling me what I can't see, I really don't feel the need to hear any more about Viagra or its herbal counterparts. Or for that matter, ads for antidepressants that just talk around the problem. I do still wonder whether those ads would help anyone recognize their own problems.
And of course with aggressive enough marketing why bother creating an active drug in the first place. The advertising companies can probably sell sugar water just as well and then they wouldn't need to worry about side effects and withdrawal.
Jane
Posted by Sunnely on June 23, 2001, at 19:42:49
In reply to Re: DTC is probably here to stay. » Sunnely, posted by Jane D on June 22, 2001, at 23:39:55
> Yes. I'm sure it is. Thanks for the article. Where did it come from?
Here are the references:
1. DeVane CL: Marketing prescription drugs to the consumer. Psychiatric Times, January 1999.
2. Impact of Direct-To-Consumer Ads. In: Clinical Psychiatry News, May 1999.
*********************************************
>
> I still have mixed feelings about this. While I don't like the idea of anyone telling me what I can't see, I really don't feel the need to hear any more about Viagra or its herbal counterparts.You're not alone. But, nothing anybody can do about it unless some powerful organizations find them highly offensive, destructive, etc., and pressure lawmakers to stop them. Ads abound and surround us all; from rising time to bedtime.
************************************************> The advertising companies can probably sell sugar water just as well
>
> JaneWith modern and sophisticated technologies, I highly doubt it. Well, OK. May be they can get away with it but only for a short time.
*****************************************8
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.