We stopped having television on our home about 13 years ago; ads such as this were one big reason. The other was the programming was very unappealing--mostly stupid and shallow, and quite loud to boot. We have never missed it in any way, and when we travel we find the hotel televisions a great place to drape sweaters. We get news from the laptop--with the sound turned off--and from newspapers. And we read books, something both of us have always loved.
Of course the only reason drug companies (actually, pretty much any large companies,) do something is to try and create more profits for themselves, period. The owners and stockholders have no interest in any other motivations, and any statements they may make to the contrary are simply a part of getting more profits as well. They really don't care what happens to anyone who uses their products, as long as they don't get caught for it. Then they try their best to deny it, until that becomes impossible given established facts. These TV ads are just another demonstration of that.
Of course the only reason drug companies (actually, pretty much any large companies,) do something is to try and create more profits for themselves, period. The owners and stockholders have no interest in any other motivations, and any statements they may make to the contrary are simply a part of getting more profits as well. They really don't care what happens to anyone who uses their products, as long as they don't get caught for it. Then they try their best to deny it, until that becomes impossible given established facts. These TV ads are just another demonstration of that.
8
Just drug Ads?
1
Advertisments for drugs are outrageous as the ads themselves reveal. There is always the "check with your doctor" routine, but no thinking person would purchase them if they listen to the side effects. The side effects are mind boggling and fatality is an oft used warning. Like cigarette and liquor ads that once filled the air and TV waves, we need new regulations to stop this insanity.
4
I'm pretty sure this is another example of "only in America." With the possible exception of New Zealand (who last I heard planned on banning direct to consumer drug TV ads) this sort of nonsense is not allowed in any other country on earth. Not to mention how exhausting it is to sit through all these ads.
10
I am a skeptic and not as knowledgeable as most but here is my 2¢: When the ads say 'Ask your doctor if (insert drug name here) is right for you!' - chances are it will be a good one to try if the doc is getting $$$ for each subscription. Sorry if that wrankles the medical professionals here but that is what I believe.
2
Fault also lies with TV stations which make money on ads.
4
Commercial speech is no hindrance to denying tax deductions for ads. Just ask the marijuana industry, which can't deduct ad costs under controversial Internal Revenue Code section 280E. There's no constitutional problem.
2
I have taken to preaching, to those who will listen, that these Rx adverts are perhaps the best means we currently have to educate people on better personal health care protocols. Watch TV, catalogue the many Rx adverts, then do some research as to what they are allegedly fixing, or merely ameliorating. Take COPD, a breathing disorder - why do so many people need it? Now do the opposite of those people. Avoid needing the drugs, by making change in ones habits/behaviors.
Look to these adverts as "instruction" on what to be avoided. Do the opposite of what those patients do, rather did, to now need these drugs and you might start on the road to a better, less disease riddled life-style.
Flip the script on the TV peddlers of Rx drugs. Dont end up needing them, but rather avoid them by making immediate changes.
Look to these adverts as "instruction" on what to be avoided. Do the opposite of what those patients do, rather did, to now need these drugs and you might start on the road to a better, less disease riddled life-style.
Flip the script on the TV peddlers of Rx drugs. Dont end up needing them, but rather avoid them by making immediate changes.
5
In the adjacent article, an outspoken defensed attorney attacks those he litigates against on an ongoing basis. The fact that corrupt and disbarred defense attorneys, generally outed by their clients, far outnumber corrupt prosecutors gets nary a mention. It must be nice to have a prominent forum where you can brazenly attack your brothers and everybody forgets that you are the bad apple.
In this country, we treat symptoms, not the cause of ill health. Drug companies invent diseases to sell their products and reap huge profits. They focus on "sexy" drugs, like impotency and baldness instead of helping to treat real diseases in third world countries. There are so many drugs that have turned out to be worst than what they were supposed to cure. What makes me really SICK, are those back-to-back ads during the news; gauzy, sappy and idiotic images with those fast talking, hushed narrations of god awful side effects. Lose weight, exercise and eat right...simple and free. In most cases, the body will heal itself.
3
Besides callously passing steep advertising costs to consumers, the pharma industry seems oblivious to the power of suggestion in their ads--or are they deliberately crafting ads that plant suggestions in consumers' minds? People I know who experience heartburn or some other common ailment only once or twice a year see an ad for an "ARD" (acid reflux "disease") product and begin to think that they have a real medical condition that requires continuous treatment. Our society is super drug-dependent. These ads reinforce the delusion that daily medication is somehow necessary even for healthy people to live satisfactory lives. All ads are manipulative, but these ads play dangerous games with people's minds. Ban them!
1
How is it that cigarette and liquor ads are banned from advertising on tv but drugs are not? It boggles the mind. People abuse prescription drugs--especially young people--I'm sure at a rate equal to alcohol and cigarettes. If you have to tell your doctor what to prescribe for you, you are probably going to the wrong doctor.
3
In addition most of the advertising is targeted at older people. It makes me sick to see those ads all day long on certain radio stations and TV. My generation was trained to always trust a doctor and not ask questions. I want to know why doctors can "just say no". How many know that thousands of patients die of prescription drugs. I never accept a new drug that has not been available for many years. Also learn how to research new drugs. Ask your doctor how, search online or if you can go to a medical school library and get the librarian to help you. And while you are at it look for other less expensive drugs that will do the same thing you are looking for. It's your life. Get rid of the advertising and don't trust Big Pharma.
1
The drug companies have bought Congress: Advertising on TV is one thing and it should be controlled as you suggest, but you should have an editorial about how Congress has prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices whereas Medicaid and Dept of Veterans Affairs can negotiate drug prices. It would be one solution to reduce Medicare costs.
2
The drug industry has a problem. Common conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and asthma have been conquered by the development of drugs which are no longer under patent. The company has made its profit. The drugs are now available as generics.
So now what for "big pharma." Work on drugs for rare disease? No profit there. Develop new drugs for diseases already conquered by the old drugs, new drugs that are only marginally more effective than the old ones, or no more effective at all? Charge huge prices for them.
How to sell them? Doctors are wise to their game, hence, advertise to the uniformed public, misinform them, "disinform" them, and try to goose up demand for these marginal drugs.
Doctors go to some trouble and expense to get information not influenced by drug companies. The FDA is responsive to congress, which is influenced by drug company lobbyists.
My advice? Find a good doctor. Work closely with that doctor. Ask questions and when you hear "ask your doctor if Blahblahblah is right for you," ask if you like but don't be surprised if the answer is, "What? That stuff? It's not right for anyone!"
So now what for "big pharma." Work on drugs for rare disease? No profit there. Develop new drugs for diseases already conquered by the old drugs, new drugs that are only marginally more effective than the old ones, or no more effective at all? Charge huge prices for them.
How to sell them? Doctors are wise to their game, hence, advertise to the uniformed public, misinform them, "disinform" them, and try to goose up demand for these marginal drugs.
Doctors go to some trouble and expense to get information not influenced by drug companies. The FDA is responsive to congress, which is influenced by drug company lobbyists.
My advice? Find a good doctor. Work closely with that doctor. Ask questions and when you hear "ask your doctor if Blahblahblah is right for you," ask if you like but don't be surprised if the answer is, "What? That stuff? It's not right for anyone!"
6
Here's a thought: if we cannot ban the drug ads, let's figure out how to block them through individualized menus.
Many in my area pay the equivalent of a car payment for access to cable tv; heck, you can no longer connect to even the basic three networks without subscribing to "basic cable."
That said, just as we are able to block ads on the internet, what is to prevent our doing so for paid our television programming? It would be so liberating to opt out of not only the pharma, lawyer, etc. ads, but, too, the incessant commercials from the bloodsucking cable providers for which we pay exorbitant fees.
Many in my area pay the equivalent of a car payment for access to cable tv; heck, you can no longer connect to even the basic three networks without subscribing to "basic cable."
That said, just as we are able to block ads on the internet, what is to prevent our doing so for paid our television programming? It would be so liberating to opt out of not only the pharma, lawyer, etc. ads, but, too, the incessant commercials from the bloodsucking cable providers for which we pay exorbitant fees.
4
It blows my mind that it is legal to market something on the public's airwaves, that were one to push hard in acquiring it, would lead to a Doctor to lower their ethical standards. Online ads also send the clear message that Doctors are little more than licensed drug dealers. How many suicides will there be (from poorly monitored prescriptions) until we recognize that we have gone way too far in dividing and diluting responsibility of patient care between pharmaceutical corporations and Doctors?
2
In many ads, literally turning the volume down leaves you with images of affluent, active, beautiful middle-aged couples riding bicycles through an idyllic, sunny, green countryside...while the turned down volume eliminates the speed-talker saying, "Side effects may include death from suffocation, paralysis, excruciating pain....." Not a lot of information there!
3
An old lament: "Half our advertising budget is wasted -- and we don't know which half."
As long as the consumer pays for it, who cares?
As long as the consumer pays for it, who cares?
I believe I know a way to eliminate drug ads. Just require the companies to include the price of a single dosage (sans insurance, which varies widely) with each ad. That ought to end it quickly!
14
Let's have Congress vote on a ban of direct to consumer advertising of drugs and medical devices before the 2016 Presidential election. Then the electorate will know who in Congress is more concerned about them or the corporations that fund their campaigns.
3
An important article. Policymakers should be looking at (1) comparison of corporate advertising budgets and corporate research budgets (according to a Pew study, in 2012 the big pharma industry spent more than $27B on drug promotion, nearly as much as the budget for the National Institutes of Health) and in recent years research budgets have been flat, (2) patent extensions on already-expensive drugs that are actually tweaks to the current formulation with little or no increased efficacy, (3) insurance company increasing copays for even generic drugs but also for completely new drugs, (4) pharmaceutical deals with preferred retail providers that affect copays and hurt consumers, often giving them no choice but to pay the high price because of delays in Rx approvals (what happened to the doctor in this equation?). Clearly reforms are needed.
1
David Vladeck has the right solution for curbing premature drug advertising for consumers. I am a professional pharmacologist and I am familiar with the hidden dangers in the use of drugs. Outside my areas of expertise, even I cannot see all the possible dangers lurking in the use of new drugs. Clinical toxicity data takes time to acquire, and its interpretation requires professional knowledge, training, and experience. It is inappropriate and unrealistic to leave this interpretation to the general public in the name of commercial free speech. Drug advertisements make it even more difficult by printing side effects of drugs in fine print which few people read.
3
We banned cigarette commercials; Therefore there is no legal rationale that would prevent us from banning commercials for prescription drugs.
4
As long as the medicinal industry have their lobbyists working their magic, this situation most likely won't change. The fact of the matter is money, and how this determines what kind of and how many ads will be shown on television.
Furthermore, with the variety and abundance of different prescription drugs, one can always find symptoms which a drug can cure which in the end result in confusion or hypochondriacs. Do people really need all of these drugs? Or are we being stimulated into thinking we're constantly unhealthy?
Furthermore, with the variety and abundance of different prescription drugs, one can always find symptoms which a drug can cure which in the end result in confusion or hypochondriacs. Do people really need all of these drugs? Or are we being stimulated into thinking we're constantly unhealthy?
2
The marketing of Proton Pump Inhibitors (Prilosec) as over-the-counter drugs may also be a problem. Since the 2006 JAMA article (Long-term Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and Risk of Hip Fracture), studies have found that the drugs inhibit absorption of nutrients other than calcium. Most recently added to the list is B12.
1
It is a very welcome article on a subject of perennial interest. For a long time it's been clear of the greedy intent of Big Pharma to push their DRUGS to the unsuspecting public.
Regular people have no idea how to qualify the merchandise, and it's impossible to offer in a 30 second spot all it's needed to be able to evaluate it. It is a wanton attempt to manipulate the market, not to inform it.
These ads on TV need to be banned and only those directed to medical personnel in magazines to be allowed.
Regular people have no idea how to qualify the merchandise, and it's impossible to offer in a 30 second spot all it's needed to be able to evaluate it. It is a wanton attempt to manipulate the market, not to inform it.
These ads on TV need to be banned and only those directed to medical personnel in magazines to be allowed.
1
How about this common pitch? "Gobbleygoogtivia, while not specifically formulated for weight loss may help patients lose weight.." What the?!?!?! How can they not-so-subtly hawk their $25,000+ per year Restless-Leg-Syndrome drug for WEIGHT LOSS (knowing that fat Americans will do anything, other than exercise and healthy eating, to lose their chubby tubby)?
A much-appreciated editorial-- Now might be the time for a companion piece on the cozy relationships between pharmaceutical companies and many physicians, also, from freebie meals and drinks (which have been shown to up prescriptions) to "promotional payments", junkets, and thousands for physician "thought leaders" who persuade other doctors to prescribe. People may well mock at, disdain, or be repelled by ads, but when the doctor prescribes a drug, the patient trusts him or her and buys it, and takes it.
4
The war on drugs should be the War on Big Pharma...but then they are the ones who lobby for the war on drugs...after listening to one drug ad after another on the news, you hear all the complications which is a longer list than the actual ad, you have yo ask yourself why would anyone ever want to take that drug in the first place? And let's not forget Medicare D and the Donut Hole...the gift of W and the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies.
4
I'm amused when the ad says "Tell YOUR doctor what medications you are taking and any medical conditions you have." If the doctor doesn't already know that information, HE IS NOT YOUR DOCTOR!!!
3
My fellow Americans, this is what unfettered capitalism looks and sounds like on TV. In a crowded movie theater, you can't shout, "Fire!", but you can scream, "Prescription drugs!"
3
I remember the debate about advertising drugs directly to the consumer. Still only in high school, I thought advertising drugs was stupid. 50+ years later, after a career as an RN for most of that time, I haven't changed my mind in the least. At their best, they are an insult to the intelligence of even the average Donald Trump fan. At their worst, they are close enough to being outright lies that we might as well call them that. As for the phrase, "Ask your doctor if [insert trademarked imitation word here] is right for you," its use should be a crime.
I'm sure that lying somewhere around the internet is the information on how much Big Pharma spends on ads and what the per-dose cost the consumer is. But then, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
I'm sure that lying somewhere around the internet is the information on how much Big Pharma spends on ads and what the per-dose cost the consumer is. But then, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
2
Perhaps they up the price of the pharmaceutical drug companies stock.
I can see no other reason.
I can see no other reason.
1
These very questionable ads have been going on for at least 20 years and are only increasing. They should be outlawed. Period.
4
If only the public were to hear more about the INCREDIBLE power of exercise and green veggies instead of all these pills. What these ads do is inculcate this mentality that says "if I'm having any problems, I should take a drug to fix them" rather than adopt lifestyle habits to prevent or fix the problems. Even if patients don't ask for a specific drug, the drug makers win just by making patients turn toward drugs as solutions.
2
Pharmaceutical companies are government sanctioned drug dealers. We have become a drug addicted society and our medical system encourages such dependence. A huge proportion of the drugs marketed by drug companies have dubious or limited utility, huge downside risks and exorbitant costs.
2
Television isn't the only culprit. Pick up many popular magazines and wade through 3 or 4 pages of fine print about a "new" drug before you get to the table of contents. As a senior I have no interest in learning about medications I don't need. Most acid reflux, for example, is curable by not eating late in the day--especially beer and fried chicken before bed! Sleep on your left side. Pharmaceutical companies often invent serious-sounding syndromes to generate a need. I learned long ago that most "OTC" meds, especially topical creams have no effect on things like severe itching. Some Rx preparations don't work either. One has to apply critical thinking to proposed "cures" and "remedies." And the best person to do that, besides yourself, is your physician.
2
If you actually listen to the voice-overs, a strange phenomenon appears. While the visuals show healthy and attractive people evidently thriving because of the miracle drugs being flacked, the words are a catalogue of all the terrible things that can happen; one of my favorites is the phrase "even lead to death". I am no attorney, but even I can tell that these disclaimers are designed to fend off lawsuits. is there any portion of the marketplace that is not over-run with clever and amoral sales pitches? (And who will write the voice-over disclaimers for Trump and Cruz?)
4
The billions of dollars spent on direct to consumer advertisements are built into the cost of marketing these drugs are showing up in the ever increasing cost of our health insurance.
While I am sure elevating awareness of pharmaceutical solutions helps improve the quality of life for some, these advertisements have a very significant impact on the cost of our health care.
There must be a reason only one other country permits them!
While I am sure elevating awareness of pharmaceutical solutions helps improve the quality of life for some, these advertisements have a very significant impact on the cost of our health care.
There must be a reason only one other country permits them!
2
The side effects mentioned do little to make me want to take any of the drugs (if I ever needed them). Some of them even state that you could die from the very disease/condition that the drug is supposed to treat.
I love the new one that promotes that it can keep you alive 'significantly longer' if you have cancer. The small print suggests that the study is based on something like 60 days versus 90 days, and can have really bad side effects. I'm sorry, but if I'm that close to death, please just let me die in peace.
I love the new one that promotes that it can keep you alive 'significantly longer' if you have cancer. The small print suggests that the study is based on something like 60 days versus 90 days, and can have really bad side effects. I'm sorry, but if I'm that close to death, please just let me die in peace.
5
I hope they get rid of them all together. I have to watch Viagra ads every night when watching the news. ED ad's are every other commercial along with depression, constipation, diabetes, and others. It seems like drug ads are 80% of all ad's now....
3
Hard to believe these ads have as much influence as they appear to given they are most often followed and preceded by ads for lawyers hoping you will join them in suing a drug company for your irreparable damage from taking their drugs.
3
real warnings at th end of tv drug adverts
“Lunesta should not be taken together with alcohol. Abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. In depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. Alcohol may increase these risks.
“Allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. Side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. Ask your doctor if Lunesta is right for you.”
_______
Elderly dementia patients taking Abilify have an increased risk of death or stroke.
“Call your doctor if you have high fever, stiff muscles and confusion to address a possible life threatening condition or if you have uncontrollable muscle movements as these can become permanent. High blood sugar has been reported with Abilify and medicines like it and in extreme cases can lead to coma or death…”
“Lunesta should not be taken together with alcohol. Abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. In depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. Alcohol may increase these risks.
“Allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. Side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. Ask your doctor if Lunesta is right for you.”
_______
Elderly dementia patients taking Abilify have an increased risk of death or stroke.
“Call your doctor if you have high fever, stiff muscles and confusion to address a possible life threatening condition or if you have uncontrollable muscle movements as these can become permanent. High blood sugar has been reported with Abilify and medicines like it and in extreme cases can lead to coma or death…”
4
The FTC can already take punitive legal action against false or misleading advertising claims -- especially claims about healthcare products. So we really need a ban? Especially when almost no one is swayed by or even pays attention to these ads in the first place?
I have been a family doc for 26 years. There is a wicked shortage of us; it can take 2 years to hire one in Pullman, if you can hire one at all. Most of us don't have the time to chat enjoyably about some commercial our patients might have heard. I have enough trouble now with the anti-vaxxers. Want to debate this with your doctor? Find another doctor. If you can.
Fortunately most pts listen to us instead of Big Pharma. Very smart to do so.
Fortunately most pts listen to us instead of Big Pharma. Very smart to do so.
26
We cant watch TV for an hour with our childen without having to watch an ad warning about the "erections lasting more than 4 hours". Its totally shameful.
2
while watching news with my almost 90 year old mother last night and seeing a viagra commercial, she turned to me and said with total innocence. "i never knew that so many men had this problem before."
3
We have been able to get around the 'commercial free speech' issue for advertising tobacco products on TV. How is this any different? Some of these drugs are very dangerous -- especially if used inappropriately. If tobacco is too dangerous to be peddled like any other consumer product, then surely prescription drugs are, as well. This is not a Constitutional issue, it is a political will issue. Lawmakers use the pious sounding concept free speech rights as an excuse to stay in the good graces of pharma major donors.
It is also important to point out that very often these days the marketing and promotions budget of pharmaceutical companies dwarfs their research and development budgets. Maybe if they no longer had the option to direct so much of their cash on advertising they could get back to the business of actually making important therapies instead of just tweaking existing drugs (in largely insignificant ways) and marketing the beejezus out of 'new and improved' compounds that are often no better (sometimes worse) than cheaper alternatives already available.
It is also important to point out that very often these days the marketing and promotions budget of pharmaceutical companies dwarfs their research and development budgets. Maybe if they no longer had the option to direct so much of their cash on advertising they could get back to the business of actually making important therapies instead of just tweaking existing drugs (in largely insignificant ways) and marketing the beejezus out of 'new and improved' compounds that are often no better (sometimes worse) than cheaper alternatives already available.
1
Not only are they pervasive (try watching network news some night!) and dangerous, but they are universally misleading in their presentation. They always start with with a statement of the drug name (and where DO they get these unpronounceable random combinations of consonants?) and the rest of the ad consists of gauzy scenes of (usually) elderly people doing pleasurable things that have nothing to do with the drug, all the while running a sotto voce drone of all the potential alarming side-effects. My assumption is that the images are supposed to distract you from the horrible things that this drug might do to you, while leaving you with vague feelings of well-being from the good-times narrative of the video. Big Pharma must think we are all incredibly stupid!
2
At one time the American public had a great confidence in The FDA. When Europe was hit hard with horribly deformed thalidomide babies the FDA protected us by disapproving the drug. Testing of new drugs was rigorously scrutinized. All that has changed. With wonder boy George's election in 2000, a trusted director of the FDA was replaced and unrestricted commerce became the norm of the day. Testing of new drugs became a joke. If the drug manufacturer didn't like the results of the first test of his product, he simply did not report it and found a new testing company who would provide the proper results that would guarantee FDA approval. Same with medical products. Good ole George breathed new like into the generally regarded as safe rule. Sure made a lot of lawyers happy and of course rich. Yes sir, Wonder Boy George - why where would America be today if not for his supreme guiding intelligence.
1
As an individual who suffered adverse events from the prescription drug Chantix, I can attest that the adverse events associated with its use were much worse than its advertised cure.
Chantix did work as advertised. During my 1st first week on the drug, I noticed I was smoking more than usual, it was then that I realized it was working; I easily quit on day 8.
Chantix prevents an individual's nicotinic brain receptors from receiving the dopamine produced by nicotine, the problem is that it also reduced my ability to derive dopamine induced pleasure from non-smoking activities, such as sex.
I only took Chantix for one month; July 31-August 29, 2007, and my real problems did not begin until after I stopped taking the drug.
I suffered from a significant number of AE's, such as panic disorder, numbness on my right side, symptoms of a stroke, etc.
I contacted my PCP, and requested tranquilizers for the panic disorder and was refused; this was the same PCP I had been seeing for over ten years, without ever asking for drugs associated with drug seeking behavior, yet now I was suddenly a drug addict.
Over the course of the following year, I was admitted to the ER on at least 5 occasions, which was more than I had in my previous 55 years.
I contacted the FDA, my Representative, and Pfizer, all to no avail.
The NIH, and CDC, are partially to blame for the epidemic of over prescribing medication, as they continue to promote lower standards for cholesterol and diabetes.
Chantix did work as advertised. During my 1st first week on the drug, I noticed I was smoking more than usual, it was then that I realized it was working; I easily quit on day 8.
Chantix prevents an individual's nicotinic brain receptors from receiving the dopamine produced by nicotine, the problem is that it also reduced my ability to derive dopamine induced pleasure from non-smoking activities, such as sex.
I only took Chantix for one month; July 31-August 29, 2007, and my real problems did not begin until after I stopped taking the drug.
I suffered from a significant number of AE's, such as panic disorder, numbness on my right side, symptoms of a stroke, etc.
I contacted my PCP, and requested tranquilizers for the panic disorder and was refused; this was the same PCP I had been seeing for over ten years, without ever asking for drugs associated with drug seeking behavior, yet now I was suddenly a drug addict.
Over the course of the following year, I was admitted to the ER on at least 5 occasions, which was more than I had in my previous 55 years.
I contacted the FDA, my Representative, and Pfizer, all to no avail.
The NIH, and CDC, are partially to blame for the epidemic of over prescribing medication, as they continue to promote lower standards for cholesterol and diabetes.
2
Drugs seem to be a trap. You fix one problem, but risk creating another. And there's another drug for that problem. We just try to live lives consistent with good physical and mental health.
2
The ads would go away if consumers of these meds--mostly older people--weren't badgering their doctors for the prescriptions.
6
I decided long ago to use the MUTE button for any such ad. They are dangerous to your health. Unfortunately, I'm not always close to be able to mute it every single time. I also imagine that media lobbyists are totally against anything that limits advertising. USE the MUTE!
1
As corporations are increasingly becoming the primary beneficiaries of constitutional rights, the return of cigarette commercials can't be too far away either.
1
I wonder how much of the rising costs of prescription drugs are linked to the cost of these ads. They can't be cheap. I'm for abolishing them completely.
3
You get what you pay for. Look at the billions spent in lobbying congress.
1
There really is no difference anymore between TV Drug Ads and doctor's prescriptions. Seeing a doctor now instantly ends up in unexpected, and as such un-needed, prescriptions costing a fortune. Medical issues are no longer to help the patient but rather to help business - very much including your friendly neighborhood doctor's bank account.
1
Ever have to wait forever past your appointment time for the "busy" male doctor only to see a sexy young woman emerge carrying her sample bag of drugs. That's why I chose a woman doctor this time.
If you want to start someplace, why not start at the beginning?
Many of the new, "on-patent" drugs being advertised are neither safer nor more efficacious than older, "off-patent" drugs the same pharma companies produce.
Why not do away with a drug approval process that allows the company applying for a patent to submit only positive study results and bury those that show that new drugs are ineffective, unsafe, or both? It takes years of litigation and discovery to get at these, if ever, by which time the companies have raked in billions in profits and the patents are set to expire.
See the recent reporting Johnson & Johnson's Risperdal by Stephen Brill.
Many of the new, "on-patent" drugs being advertised are neither safer nor more efficacious than older, "off-patent" drugs the same pharma companies produce.
Why not do away with a drug approval process that allows the company applying for a patent to submit only positive study results and bury those that show that new drugs are ineffective, unsafe, or both? It takes years of litigation and discovery to get at these, if ever, by which time the companies have raked in billions in profits and the patents are set to expire.
See the recent reporting Johnson & Johnson's Risperdal by Stephen Brill.
5
Concur. Pharma peddling prescription drugs with such a license, pushing patients to demand them from accommodating physicians, is an abuse; and we are not even talking about the unending side effects you, the patient, must be sure to ask. lest somebody gets sued for lack of a 'frank' talk. Brand names are the one's being promoted, after all that's where the money is, irrespective of the existence of cheaper and equally effective medication. Are we being gouged, if we add the wild price increases of even older drugs, just 'because they can'? How low can we get? Greed incorporated? And no sensible regulations to put a stop to this mayhem?
1
We've long had ad blockers for computers, and Apple has made them available in iOS 9 for iPhones and iPads.
Wouldn't it be great if some clever software engineers would develop ad blockers for TV? Maybe pass-through applications on Apple TV, Xbox One, Playstation, etc. that somehow block ads. You could whitelist programs that tend to show ads that you don't mind seeing (especially the Super Bowl). Maybe press a button on the remote to capture a digital signature for an ad that you want blocked the next time it comes up. (You'd still see the beginning of blocked ads with this approach, but not the whole thing.) I'm sure clever software engineers could figure out different ways to do this.
If something like that were available, I might even start watching the evening news again.
Wouldn't it be great if some clever software engineers would develop ad blockers for TV? Maybe pass-through applications on Apple TV, Xbox One, Playstation, etc. that somehow block ads. You could whitelist programs that tend to show ads that you don't mind seeing (especially the Super Bowl). Maybe press a button on the remote to capture a digital signature for an ad that you want blocked the next time it comes up. (You'd still see the beginning of blocked ads with this approach, but not the whole thing.) I'm sure clever software engineers could figure out different ways to do this.
If something like that were available, I might even start watching the evening news again.
I think if these ads were banned, that would be the end of the evening news on television. Who would sponsor it, in their absence? I rarely watch network news because I truly doubt their impartiality when their revenue is so dependent on a single source. PBS is the only source of news which I feel has maintained their journalistic integrity.
3
Harry, I'm sorry to have to tell you PBS has become just another Brain-Washing machine serving the corporate greed.
Your best chance is to find a few of the alternative Media in the Internet to try to build a consensus on what's really happening out there.
The global Oligarchy network has been developing a vast empire of controlled Media to shape the narrative of consumer-voters, across borders, as currently is happening in US and Europe with the rise of Russia-bashing to excuse the huge military spending in the budget.
Your best chance is to find a few of the alternative Media in the Internet to try to build a consensus on what's really happening out there.
The global Oligarchy network has been developing a vast empire of controlled Media to shape the narrative of consumer-voters, across borders, as currently is happening in US and Europe with the rise of Russia-bashing to excuse the huge military spending in the budget.
I imagine these ads raise the costs of drugs in America. I imagine they also encourage people to use drugs they don't need. Given our already ridiculously high drug costs, this seems like a very bad idea. I also imagine that the only reason we allow tv drug ads in America is because Big Pharma has so much money, so much clout and so many Congressmen in their pockets that they pretty much get what they want, public good be damned.
4
The pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than on R & D. And still have higher profit margins far and away than any other industry. So the next time you're hit with astronomical prices for a drug you need, no reason to wonder why.
3
It is misleading to say "The F.D.A. currently does little to crack down on [misleading drug advertisements and] ... has never imposed civil fines on a company for a misleading ad or promotion." The Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) monitors drug advertising and frequently issues advisory and warning letters to drug companies if the contents of an ad don't pass muster. DDMAC sets a very high bar for scientific accuracy and fair balance, and drug companies go to great lengths to make sure their ads are in compliance. Every second of every TV ad and every comma and semi-colon of ever print ad are carefully scrutinized by medical and regulatory experts at the drug company and are often reviewed by regulators at DDMAC. Although the occasional misleading ad may make it to publication, DDMAC is very adept as swooping in and having misleading ads quickly pulled from circulation, often with corrective actions afterwards.
It's not just the drug advertisements - it's just about all the commercials on daytime TV, that prey upon the fears of older people.
1
In the process of developing its great wealth, the U.S. has allowed the government, in a general way, to become a handmaiden to, if not entirely a captive of the corporate sector. Big Pharma is the poster child for rapacious exploitation of unwitting consumers. In the name of public safety, of course advertising for such potent and life-threatening products should be regulated, but the cries of "freedom!" and "choice!" and "profit!" drown out the rational calls for protecting the public. Examples of the need for regulation beyond the pharmaceutical industry abound. Most are less potentially lethal but nonetheless ruinous: try Wall Street, for one, the banks for another.
8
Rapacious exploitation. You hit the nail on the head.
1
Some of the drugs side effects are the exact same disorder that you have. Go figure!
5
Yes, very convenient for the pharma corp so they can fool you while hiding the fact the medicine is not effective at all. They pay crooks to come up with these "marketing" ideas to profit from.
One more reason not to watch television (in addition to the inanity of most programming). I mean who wants to spend 10-15 minutes per hour being reminded of illness and bodily malfunctions?
However I do agree that those speed-readings of the side effects--essentially telling you that what went before is a lie--are darkly hilarious the first few times. That and figuring out how that $50 pill is going to work, if the man and woman are in separate bath tubs on the edge of a cliff!
However I do agree that those speed-readings of the side effects--essentially telling you that what went before is a lie--are darkly hilarious the first few times. That and figuring out how that $50 pill is going to work, if the man and woman are in separate bath tubs on the edge of a cliff!
21
LOL. I don't get the thing with the theoretically excited couple sitting in separate bathtubs. Is that supposed to be romantic? Get in a hot tub people!
1
OH PULEEEEZE! We don't need to worry about drug ads--just open mom or dad's medicine cabinet and have a "skittles" party. Just read about that a few days ago. Google it if you are not familiar.
This I read a week or so ago:"“Every one of these bricks of cocaine was headed for the United States,” Coast Guard Admiral Paul Zukunft told reporters, adding that the United States consumes about 420 metric tons of cocaine each year."...and
"Zukunft said Coast Guard anti-smuggling operations have netted 59 tons of narcotics off the shores of Mexico and Central America during the past year, more than was seized during the three previous years combined." and...
"
"SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A U.S. Coast Guard cutter carrying [ more than 66,000 pounds ] $1 billion worth of cocaine and heroin seized from narcotics smugglers at sea returned on Monday from a four-month mission off the Pacific Coast of Mexico, Central and South America."
what with states clamoring for marijuana for everyone (even the DOJ last year said it should be legalized) and the daily drug use of 40% of the world"s drugs by 2% of the world's population, the drug companies are right in their element.
Maybe, though if they all "invert" to European owners, we can ban drug ads by FOREIGN companies which don't pay federal taxes.
This I read a week or so ago:"“Every one of these bricks of cocaine was headed for the United States,” Coast Guard Admiral Paul Zukunft told reporters, adding that the United States consumes about 420 metric tons of cocaine each year."...and
"Zukunft said Coast Guard anti-smuggling operations have netted 59 tons of narcotics off the shores of Mexico and Central America during the past year, more than was seized during the three previous years combined." and...
"
"SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A U.S. Coast Guard cutter carrying [ more than 66,000 pounds ] $1 billion worth of cocaine and heroin seized from narcotics smugglers at sea returned on Monday from a four-month mission off the Pacific Coast of Mexico, Central and South America."
what with states clamoring for marijuana for everyone (even the DOJ last year said it should be legalized) and the daily drug use of 40% of the world"s drugs by 2% of the world's population, the drug companies are right in their element.
Maybe, though if they all "invert" to European owners, we can ban drug ads by FOREIGN companies which don't pay federal taxes.
1
As I say in all the articles and opinion pieces of our healthcare system. The system is broken. Healthcare should be considered a right and not a source of profit for corporations. It should not be a source of campaign contributions nor should it allow executives to make tens of millions of dollars. It should not favor those who are rich of better off than the poor. You net worth should not decide how good of care you receive. It should be a single payer system, devoid of profit, managed by our government. Medicare for all is an obvious solution with the repeal of the disgraceful law that Medicare cannot negotiate with healthcare providers over costs.
2
How about turning down the volume on general advertising on this website and other news websites? Similar to those who are tired of their prescription fees going towards drug advertising: I'm tired of my subscription money to news organizations not allowing me to block corny advertisements.
1
Please emphasize this more and more!
1
Really, 89% of the American public favors FDA review of drug ads? That high a percentage requires a majority of Republicans as well as Democrats. But, because the reason the FDA does not review (all) drug ads is that it simply doesn't have the person-power to do that, instituting such a review would by necessity require expanding government (and government regulation), right? And of course you would need to trust the FDA to conduct a fair and balanced review, but I thought that you can't trust government to do anything at all as long as Obama is president, right? Will wonders never cease?
When you see those ads for a food steamer which can cook an entire meal "In Just Minutes!" -- or that exercise device which will give you washboard-abs without having to go to the gym -- you also see them exclaim...
"As seen on TV!!"
And - apparently - it works, because enough people buy those products to justify a never-ending supply or products and advertising...
So - Now you can find relief for that malady you never knew you had by just "Asking your doctor" for that new medication -- you saw on TV --
The only caveat being that a prescription for the new wonder drug is probably a bit more expensive than the steamer -- and you don't get an extra one if you "Act Now!" --
"As seen on TV!!"
And - apparently - it works, because enough people buy those products to justify a never-ending supply or products and advertising...
So - Now you can find relief for that malady you never knew you had by just "Asking your doctor" for that new medication -- you saw on TV --
The only caveat being that a prescription for the new wonder drug is probably a bit more expensive than the steamer -- and you don't get an extra one if you "Act Now!" --
Every ad immediately trips my mind to John Kay's angry voice singing "The Pusher". And after reading this, it may forever be the same for you. I'm not necessarily sorry about that.
Amusing that it's always attractive women (in one wearing a No. 16 jersey, any clue what that's about?) pitching erection providing drugs. Why not turgid testimony from the old farts who actually buy the pills ?
4
Any drug that has the side-effect of anal-leakage is a deal killer for me.
3
I'm becoming one of your fans, Kevin. Good point here.
I began my business career as a pharmaceutical sales representative and rose to executive status. At that time a sales rep was either a pharmacist or pre-med graduate. Product information was limited to pharmacists and physicians. I have been disgusted to see sales reps become pom-pom girls promoting sex enhancement, unethical consumer promotion and corporate objectives tax avoidance. Gross lack of ethics.
3
Oh My GOD.. Pleas stop this!! Every day, all day, all evening, all night!! The drug makers have taker over the air waves... I for one at 68, do not take any pills at all. Only supplements like Dr Mecorla web site. I feel sorry for people you have been suckered in to this debacle of drugs and more drugs that probably don't really work. These companies are not doing a service to the population.. just collecting money. Yuck!
4
These DTC drug asks ask the consumer;
'don't trust your doctors history and physical examination, instead ask your doctor if our drug is right for you.'
The AMA has taken decades to cry foul on thesse ads because in the interim, the AMA and it's Journals and meetins have accepted and continue to accept $100's of millions of dollars in direct payments from big pharma.
Big pharma spends only 15% of it's income on R & D but a whoping 40% on commercials which tell you not to trust your physicians history and physical, but to ask your doctor if their drug is right for you with absolutely no improvement in outcomes, and billions of dollars wasted on name brand drugs which offer no improved outcome benefit for the patient or their physician.
These industries pour millions of dollars weekly into the coffers and pockets of members of congress and the administration so don't expect concrete action angainst DTC marketing any time soon.
'don't trust your doctors history and physical examination, instead ask your doctor if our drug is right for you.'
The AMA has taken decades to cry foul on thesse ads because in the interim, the AMA and it's Journals and meetins have accepted and continue to accept $100's of millions of dollars in direct payments from big pharma.
Big pharma spends only 15% of it's income on R & D but a whoping 40% on commercials which tell you not to trust your physicians history and physical, but to ask your doctor if their drug is right for you with absolutely no improvement in outcomes, and billions of dollars wasted on name brand drugs which offer no improved outcome benefit for the patient or their physician.
These industries pour millions of dollars weekly into the coffers and pockets of members of congress and the administration so don't expect concrete action angainst DTC marketing any time soon.
2
Why are we only talking about pharmaceutical ads? Someone once wrote, "advertising is calculated dishonesty." All you have to do is listen carefully to most television ads to see that statement as largely true.
We sit idly by as generations are raised and steeped in this intentional shading of the truth, to the point that we may be unable to discern what's valid and what's not.
We've allowed this to spread into our electoral system to the point that most election cycles are awash in ugly attack ads and sensationalist character portrayals, whether flattering or not.
In our television "news," we now have a one hour program that is about 35 minutes of "content" and 25 minutes of ads. Check it out, even for just a half hour the format holds.
This seems to be the result of our compelling need for-Stuff. Largely things we don't need. But what else is a good consumer society supposed to do?
The corporate media could well be feared as the looming military industrial complex that Ike warned us about. Are there any drugs to cure that?
We sit idly by as generations are raised and steeped in this intentional shading of the truth, to the point that we may be unable to discern what's valid and what's not.
We've allowed this to spread into our electoral system to the point that most election cycles are awash in ugly attack ads and sensationalist character portrayals, whether flattering or not.
In our television "news," we now have a one hour program that is about 35 minutes of "content" and 25 minutes of ads. Check it out, even for just a half hour the format holds.
This seems to be the result of our compelling need for-Stuff. Largely things we don't need. But what else is a good consumer society supposed to do?
The corporate media could well be feared as the looming military industrial complex that Ike warned us about. Are there any drugs to cure that?
4
The ads are ridiculous. Twenty seconds of smiling, happy people often bouncing along to insipid music and then 40 seconds of warnings about all the potentially serious side-effects...."sometimes fatal." And then the denouement "ask your doctor if XXYY is right for you?
Just imagine if the cost that goes into these ads were used instead to lower the prices on some very expensive, but potentially life saving drugs or even to advance research.
Just imagine if the cost that goes into these ads were used instead to lower the prices on some very expensive, but potentially life saving drugs or even to advance research.
11
The ads are annoying and depressing, who wants to hear the endless list of possible side effects? Yuck! Just another reason to stop watching network television.
4
I would dare say that probably the two biggest spenders on ads are the food and pharmaceutical industries. When it comes to trying to ban these ads and considering the amount of dollars that would be lost, I would imagine the advertising industry is shaking in its boots. Here come the lobbyists.
2
Drud ads baffle me. Who is their intended audience? Lay people are not qualified to determine what treatment is best. Do people really demand from their doctors something they saw on TV, something of which the doctor is unaware? And if so, is this proving profitable for these pushers? Do doctors really let the patient dictate treatment, based on some TV hype? Surely doctors are dealing with hype directly from the pushers -- do doctor and patient argue about it? I had the same questions when these ads first began to appear and I remember thinking, this is a spectacularly stupid idea.
5
Totally agree with you. It is insane that we allow these ads -- listening to a long list of horrible possible side-effects when only a small fraction of the audience is in the market for the drug. The disclosure of side-effects is something that should be done in private with a potential user of the drug, not to the vast numbers of people who are not at all in need of the drug. I thought when these ads were first allowed (and required to list the side-effects), they would immediately disappear because of the absurdity of it. But no, apparently enough people respond to make it worth the while of the pharmaceutical companies to gross out the rest of us on a regular basis. We are a drug-addled country with no end in sight.
Big pharma is perhaps the greatest beneficiary of our lax system of corporate controls in America. The biggest abusers of the profit motive have been in the news lately (Turing & Valeant) and one can see the incredible lengths to which the profit motive can be taken (raising the price of a drug 100 fold, or more). So long as greed and obscene profits are allowed in the marketplace of medicine and pharmaceuticals, we will see outrageous prices for medications, and an endless stream of advertisements to the public (ruled by fear and ignorance of their medical conditions and options). After all, this is "free enterprise."
34
Make no mistake: These drugs have very serious side effects and if you're one of the unlucky who experience the severest of them they can ruin your life. If you're not careful, you will be prescribed more drugs to alleviate the side effects of the original drug and before you know it you'll be a belted in passenger on the Big Pharma roller coaster. What is even more disturbing is that the fastest growing segment of society being prescribed these drugs are CHILDREN.
Big Pharma has taken humanity and turned it into a disorder. They need to be reigned in. Instead, they are merging, dodging taxes, and becoming richer and stronger than ever. It's terrifying.
Big Pharma has taken humanity and turned it into a disorder. They need to be reigned in. Instead, they are merging, dodging taxes, and becoming richer and stronger than ever. It's terrifying.
23
Given that drug companies claim they have to have the highest prices in the world in order to do research on new drugs, and that advertising comprises a bigger portion of their costs.....maybe the prices could be dropped?...no, of course not.
9
It has been the case that for quite some time now, the pharmaceutical companies spend more money per year on advertising than research and development. The sad fact is you have a consumer that is looking at these ads the same way as any other advertising while doing their own diagnosis in the process, hence the reason why when it comes to the consumption of prescription drugs, America is by a long shot, the highest on the planet. No wonder the doctors are worried.
3
A society where Donald Trump is a leading candidate for the highest office.
Should not be self medicating
Should not be self medicating
13
A society where Donald Trump... Don't forget Its the Republicans society you are referring to. Much safer and better are the Dems
1
I favor the Canadian model on this. A company can advertise a drug in one of two ways: they can run an ad that basically says "we make a drug that treats depression," or they run an ad that says "we make a drug called XYZ," but they can never give both the name of the drug AND what it does. The idea is to allow consumers to ask their doctor about drugs that treat depression, or a drug called XYZ, but they can't go in and say "I want XYZ for my depression."
This sharply reduces over-prescribing and helps improve outcomes.
This sharply reduces over-prescribing and helps improve outcomes.
8
A brave stance indeed by the Editorial staff.
8
Ban the ads now, FCC/FTC/FDA. This perversion of media space is reminiscent of the cigarette and tobacco ads that washed over us in the 50s and 60s.
That we would presume to "ask your doctor" about an unpronounceable drug for an unpronounceable condition with side effects "including death" is beyond absurd.
Stop now!
That we would presume to "ask your doctor" about an unpronounceable drug for an unpronounceable condition with side effects "including death" is beyond absurd.
Stop now!
16
Drug adds should be banned just like cigarets and alcohol adds. I got rid of my TV years ago because of drug adds. The brainwashing with TV adds ,billboards, and magazines is over the top.
2
As a practicing physician, I usually tell patients that the only drugs that are advertised are likely to not be on their insurance formulary because of their exorbitant prices. Advertising is expensive and you know for sure that Big Pharma are not going to pay for this alone. I for one have never been in favor of DTC (direct to consumer advertising) and wish that it would stop. If a busy car provider had 10 min. per patient, why devote 4 minutes to explaining why the drug is not appropriate.
6
Doctors in a position to be forced to spend ten minutes per patient in assembly-line style deserves an editorial of its own.
All advertisements for drugs should be completely banned. First of all, I am somewhat amazed at some of the drugs getting a lot of time - how many people really have "moderate to severe plaque psoriasis" or Rheumatoid arthritis. You would think these are common diseases by the number of advertisements. It is also interesting to see drugs morph from being used in one disease, to all of a sudden being recommended for a myriad of other things. The real intent of these advertisements is to get people to demand their doctor prescribe them - and convince people they had a condition requiring their use. Given the craven marketing and over-charging by pharmaceutical companies, the public should be more than skeptical of any drug advertising. Decision on drug prescriptions should be left to one's doctor - and shouldn't be influenced by mass marketing. Again, I wonder why the U.S. is one of only a couple of countries that allows this - oh, I forgot. Big Pharma spends a lot of money on political donations.
3
First, we should educate the doctors. Every doctor requires a list of my medications. Perhaps they don't read it, but they certainly do not know what it means. I take CellCept for auto-immune disease, yet my doctor still calls me to persuade me that I should get inoculated....a procedure specifically not recommended for auto-immune patients. I became auto-immune from misdiagnosis and inappropriate medication.... Any sensible person would welcome the TV ads and that list of the potential side-effects. We need to protect ourselves against the poisons frequently prescribed.
3
As a physician I am often asked by patients to prescribe medication they have seen advertised on television. Virtually all drugs advertised are expensive, some at a cost of 25,000 annually. There is no question that the cost of healthcare is rising in large part due to new expensive treatments, as well as older medications whose prices have risen astronimicallhy. Something needs to be done before the whole system implodes...restricting direct to consumer advertising would be a good start.
16
It's the evening news where you get these on broadcast TV...As an oldster I think they are aimed at me and my generation who still watch the news ??? They are very expensive adds for expensive drugs...I always mute them. Listening to the possible side affects makes me wonder why anyone would take them.
10
Lets see, for an acne medication, the side effects could be suicidal tendencies and/or or death. Hmm,mm, decisions, decisions, I think I will choose acne instead of the drug.
2
How about banning lawyer personal injury ads?
11
how about banning lawyers
1
I agree with the sentiments of restricting or banning pharmaceutical ads on TV with an alternative of establishing a channel only for disease education that may include these ads. The ads came about when the industry began changing it's stripes from a respected member of the medical community to one whose only focus is to sell product. The 90's was a watershed decade for the culture of greed that seems to have taken hold in many US corporations and pharma was right there with the pack.
The FDA did intercede after the first round of DTC TV ads requiring them to include drug side effects, previously only the marketing information was shared with TV viewers. Now if people pay attention to the ads it might be realized that a drug could cause more health problems than it solves.
This change in the industry to market directly to consumers was part of an overall move to view physicians as simply the source of revenue through their Rxs by attempting to have patients demand a specific pill. Since that decade physicians have had their waiting rooms filled with representative who came from industries that were trained in using high pressure sales techniques. Physicians should be reeling as these new type sales reps replaced individuals who came only once per month and engaged in substantial discussion rather than only delivering marketing's message.
DTC TV ads simply demonstrate that for many companies in this industry their passion is only for the dollar, not patient welfare.
The FDA did intercede after the first round of DTC TV ads requiring them to include drug side effects, previously only the marketing information was shared with TV viewers. Now if people pay attention to the ads it might be realized that a drug could cause more health problems than it solves.
This change in the industry to market directly to consumers was part of an overall move to view physicians as simply the source of revenue through their Rxs by attempting to have patients demand a specific pill. Since that decade physicians have had their waiting rooms filled with representative who came from industries that were trained in using high pressure sales techniques. Physicians should be reeling as these new type sales reps replaced individuals who came only once per month and engaged in substantial discussion rather than only delivering marketing's message.
DTC TV ads simply demonstrate that for many companies in this industry their passion is only for the dollar, not patient welfare.
5
I believe you are right in what you say. Growing up in the 50's and 60's, I fully trusted our family doctor and believed that pharma and hospitals worked hard to help us all. I lost trust in the 90's and lose more every day. I am now convinced that getting into our wallets and extracting every last penny is the ultimate aim of pharma, not to mention for-profit hospitals, for-profit clinics, and, unfortunately, many docs.
The cancer industry (imagine a disease that produces more revenue than cancer . . . can you?) is a good example. Recently a family member (quite elderly) was diagnosed and the docs pushed hard for treatment, convincing him that a long-lasting remission was possible and worth the cost. However, I believe they must have known that the treatment would have the same result as the disease, as it sapped his strength rapidly--death within 6 months. Shameful.
The cancer industry (imagine a disease that produces more revenue than cancer . . . can you?) is a good example. Recently a family member (quite elderly) was diagnosed and the docs pushed hard for treatment, convincing him that a long-lasting remission was possible and worth the cost. However, I believe they must have known that the treatment would have the same result as the disease, as it sapped his strength rapidly--death within 6 months. Shameful.
Consumers should be skeptical?? Skeptical of the information we get?? Skeptical even of the NY Times?? No, tell me it isn't so!!
2
As a European vacationing in the US, i'm glad it is not only me who shakes her head. Big pharma, an even uglier industry than banks/finance, brings you strong drugs, packaged as lifestyle items, through good and happy looking people into your home. Difficult to escape them, as the magazine you take into your hands after having switched the TV off, is full of the same ads. I have nothing against occasional commercials but i despise having everything possible thrown into my face every few minutes.
4
Can we please do away with TV ads about erections and elections? Most democratic countries allow neither.
15
All of the drugs advertised are very expensive - check out the cost for treating toe nail fungus.
7
Forget the cost - look at the side effects! Toenail fungus may be ugly and occasionally uncomfortable, but I can live with that. Liver or kidney damage is another story entirely.
The word "suffer " should be banned from drug ads. It suggests that the viewer who has the disease in question not only has the disease which may be mostly just inconvenient but that they also suffer. There is suffering in this world but not with most of these advertised illnesses.
4
"Supporters of the ads"?
You mean big-pharma lobbyists?
My kids have a good time ridiculing these ads--they are well past the point of absurdity. Drug companies need at least to be self-aware enough to understand that they are backfiring and a constant source of satire, even among children. If companies are that stupid, can we really trust their products?
You mean big-pharma lobbyists?
My kids have a good time ridiculing these ads--they are well past the point of absurdity. Drug companies need at least to be self-aware enough to understand that they are backfiring and a constant source of satire, even among children. If companies are that stupid, can we really trust their products?
3
Has anyone else noticed that the possible side effects of these miracle drugs often sound worse than the condition they are supposed to relieve? Occasionally the thought crosses my mind that I'd pay more for a medication to alleviate the side effects and get me back to the original condition. By the way, whatever happened to restless leg syndrome? Has it been eradicated, thanks to the miracle drugs that saturated the airwaves not long ago?
9
As the consumer/viewer, don't turn the volume down--turn it UP, and look away from the happy pictures of patients living better lives on the drugs than any of us live off them. The sound track is at least 75% horrific side-effects, usually for some drug that you might take because you could "do more" than on the standard, effective drug, or because you could take a pill half as often. It's inconceivable to me that any sane person could draw any other conclusion from these ads than that here are manipulative companies out to risk your health and override expert medical opinion in order to squeeze more money out of your pocket. And that someone must be doing their job if these companies have been forced to read off the side effects.
2
Anyone taken in by drugs advertised on television or "high-quality" magazines, especially those with side effects of death, internal bleeding, loss of vision or blurred vision, thoughts of suicide, elevated risk of stroke, diabetes, temporary or permanent paralysis, memory loss, slurred speech, and/or sexual dysfunction, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in...
10
I agree. As a doctor, I love having discussions with patients regarding treatment plans and if reading about drugs and devices mean they would feel empowered to advocate for themselves, I heartily welcome that. There is more to the story of drugs and devices before they hit the market, particularly clinical trials and discussions with other clinicians before I would prescribe them to patients, all of which cannot be encompassed quite as accurately in a TV ad.
Call them by their street name: Drug dealers.
16
When the possible side effects take more time to describe than the potential benefits, I believe this is really OVERKILL!
1
Tell them NYT! My physician friend is exhausted with all the patients coming in with requests for prescriptions of drugs they saw advertised on TV.
2
I say ban all drug ads as is done with tobacco ads. You want to know what drug you need, then go to your doctor and let him prescribe what you need if any is needed.
7
I trust my doctor to recommend drugs that I may need - not a drug company trying to market a new and more expensive drug. I have gout and take a medicine that's has been around for a 100-years - its cheap - it works yet from looking at TV - there are new more expensive and no more effective than what I am already taking.
Oh - and the new cancer drug for lung cancer - the one that starts off with " A longer life" - so if you spend in excess of 100,000 dollars for the drug - you have a 50% chance on average living 3-months longer. marketing the hope to people who are dying for 3 more months.
Drug companies should not market to consumers - waste of money and just adds to the cost of drugs.
Oh - and the new cancer drug for lung cancer - the one that starts off with " A longer life" - so if you spend in excess of 100,000 dollars for the drug - you have a 50% chance on average living 3-months longer. marketing the hope to people who are dying for 3 more months.
Drug companies should not market to consumers - waste of money and just adds to the cost of drugs.
6
Another piece of legislation needed is to make sure that the results of every drug trial are made public. The drug companies can and do keep secret trials that show negative results, and only publicize the ones that are positive.
5
Follow the money and do the math. Drug ads must to be beneficial to the bottom line for pharmaceutical companies to produce them - particularly the expense of TV ads which seem to be getting longer and longer. Drug company executives must ask, "Is consumer advertising producing sales?" Apparently so.
Drug executives also know the prevalence of those medical conditions that make advertising worthwhile. That's where we consumers are at a disadvantage and need to do the math to figure out if we are targeted. For example, if a medical condition affects only 0.5% of 307 million Americans, that means 1.5 million potential drug users. Take that number times the cost (say $50) and you're talking real revenue for a drug company.
Yet most of us do not know the likelihood of having any medical condition. Drug ads mislead us into thinking a medical condition is more prevalent than it really is, and that only a drug can alleviate it. Ask your doctor.
Drug executives also know the prevalence of those medical conditions that make advertising worthwhile. That's where we consumers are at a disadvantage and need to do the math to figure out if we are targeted. For example, if a medical condition affects only 0.5% of 307 million Americans, that means 1.5 million potential drug users. Take that number times the cost (say $50) and you're talking real revenue for a drug company.
Yet most of us do not know the likelihood of having any medical condition. Drug ads mislead us into thinking a medical condition is more prevalent than it really is, and that only a drug can alleviate it. Ask your doctor.
1
I am newly retired and watch a bit more TV now. I wonder if more seniors watch a TV than other groups. The medication ads are getting tiring and, at least, are encouraging me to turn off the TV more. I take it back a bit though about all those ads pitched to we seniors as I see that Erectile Dysfunction ads now warn that over half of the men over forty have some kind of erectile dysfunction. Geez.
3
Ask your doctor about opium...you may like it.
8
Oo, then they can sell you meds for opioid induced constipation too!
3
A side effect is opiod "withdrawal"--what sane opiate user would want to go through perpetual withdrawal? They have hospitals for that. Orr maybe you could take suboxone (used for opiate "addiction") to counter the opiod withdrawal caused by the constipation med!
Let's not forget the other reason why these companies are constantly hawking their latest wares- the advertising of the latest supposed new cure all drug can boost stock sales for the Big Pharma company. In this country it's all about the shareholders.
1
A complete and permanent ban on advertisement for prescription medications should be imposed.
Drug ads, by design, spread misinformation, create hypochondria, and drive societal medical costs.
They need to be stopped.
Drug ads, by design, spread misinformation, create hypochondria, and drive societal medical costs.
They need to be stopped.
7
Yesterday, during the barrage of Black Friday football beer food car spots came an ad for yet another drug for yet another malady that was entirely new to me, one it seemed could well have kept some marketing executive awake at night as s/he ruminated on yet another product to help maintain the bottom line on its own form of Cialis: opioid induced constipation. OID. So, now, Big Pharma has contrived another prescription drug to counter the effects on humans--in this case, on the bowels--of other prescription drugs. We are without a doubt the most heavily, pathetically and tragically medicated nation on the planet, with an astonishing variety of disease and afflictions, many of them self-imposed and even invented to keep the pharma plants humming. And still we consider ourselves superior, "exceptional." Exceptional what? Exceptional lab rats and veritable junkies, providing to Big Pharma a new customer and sucker every minute of the day. They work us over and bilk us, so is it any wonder that politicians follow a similar playbook to dupe the gullible?
3
I fully support a ban -- or at least tighter controls on the nature of these commercials and when they can run. Many of these ads are totally inappropriate for children -- why does my 7 year old daughter need to be exposed to erectile dysfunction ads in the middle of a daytime baseball game? It's just unnecessary! And while you're at it -- please get rig of the toe fungus commercials as well.
5
Modern-age snake oil salesmen
2
Ever notice the often advertised drugs are generally followed a year or so later with class action injury lawsuits, sometimes within the same hour of each other. The more I see annoying, condescending product ads, the more likely I boycott those products. The hyper pitches remind me of the snake oil salesmen a century earlier with the same product safety and effectiveness.
2
An idea long overdue. About time Big Pharma concentrates on something other than misleading people.
4
Be skeptical of TV ads you say? Gosh I wouldn't have known! I used to take all TV ads at face value, not just the drug ads. Thanks NYT!
1
Some in Iowa take things at face value. Look who is leading the GOP prmary.
2
Intersting comment David, as the only Trump ads I've seen on TV are anti-Trump. Sure you're thinking of Iowa?
I've told my doctors that I refuse to take any drug that is advertised on television -- none of them have a problem with that.
3
An especially good idea because it would be reasonable to conclude that if the drug's being advertised to uninformed consumers, it must be something the companies can't directly persuade doctors is worthwhile.
1
more consumer abuse driven by lobbyists controlling Congress. FCC went to useless under Michael Powell and gets worse each year. i am relieved all this beyond inappropriate advertising happens after my father died. How horrible gor young children, watching tv with a parent, asking " what is erectile disfunction, Daddy?". also , it is plain annoying, one disgusting, over-hyped ad after another. AND, the consumer is in no way qualified to chose their own drug.
3
Whenever a drug ad comes on TV, I start channel hoping with my clicker, knowing I've got at least 60 seconds owing to all the disclaimers they're required to run. Knowing, too, they want me to think I suffer from whatever they're selling their pills to cure. And feeling sorry for the doctors about to be inundated by their snake oil. Ban 'em. We did it for tobacco.
2
It's negative programming. Ban it from adverting
2
What about when we start seeing ads for medical weed? That will probably be in our future also. Big Pharma can't wait to get their hands on that business I am sure.
Americans are the most self-diagnosed people around. They see they may have symptoms similar to the drug-du-jour being hawked on TV and run to their doctors for some. In case anyone may be looking and listening, all of those side effects that may occur are a part of the experimentation that has not been completed in the laboratory, but now the public is participating in at their own expense. Yes, our insurance rates go up because the insurance companies can charge more for excessive doctor visits and top tier drugs. If americans ate properly, got enough activity and took better care of themselves, they wouldn't need half of what's being hawked on TV.
1
I suspect that drug ads account for a huge proportion of TV revenues. Does anyone know how much? No wonder that health costs in the US are so high if they include much of costs of the entertainment industry.
1
My recollection: television ads for prescription medications were banned for years by FDA until they struck a bargain with the pharmaceutical companies. The deal was this: you can advertise your prescription medications on television, but only if your ads also include a detailed list of possible side-effects. Is my recollection wrong?
Americans are perhaps unaware of how grossly our entire health care system is dominated by the pharmaceutical industry. The TV ads are unethical and aggressive attempts by the industry to bypass doctors, and they must be successful because we're seeing more of them than ever.
The light-hearted and seductive way the serious prescription drugs are hawked is no different from peddling snake oil. Since the FDA has become more of a political animal than an agency based on sound science, it is very unlikely to take action based on good health practices.
TV advertising of prescription drugs needs to be eliminated for the safety and health of all. That the consumer pays among the most exorbitant prices on earth for drugs is further reason to put a stop to this practice.
The light-hearted and seductive way the serious prescription drugs are hawked is no different from peddling snake oil. Since the FDA has become more of a political animal than an agency based on sound science, it is very unlikely to take action based on good health practices.
TV advertising of prescription drugs needs to be eliminated for the safety and health of all. That the consumer pays among the most exorbitant prices on earth for drugs is further reason to put a stop to this practice.
5
Ads for drugs should be limited to tombstone ads directed only towards doctors, not on TV to non-medical practitioners.
1
Whenever I listen to the litany of side effects described in prescription drug commercials, I come away convinced that access to them really should be in the hands of medical professionals. Given the possible side effects usually described, it's a wonder that ANYONE should ever take them and clearly deciding for whom they are appropriate (or not) requires advanced knowledge. In addition to advancing public safety, taking these ads off the air would save us from having to explain erectile dysfunction to our kids during football games, another added benefit of having clinicians serve as the gatekeepers.
I agree with all the negative comments about the prescriptio drug ads. However, it's most entertaining when the voiceover list all of the reported side effects, not distinguishing between commoon and uncommon ones. And, some of the side effects are actually symptoms that the drug in question air aimed at treating.
2
Misleading is about the most mild thing you can say about what has been happening with drug advertising. Downright creepy, psychologically manipulative, insulting and worse is more like it. Everything from cute yet demanding cartoon bladders, bizarre sleepy cat computer graphic memes to ridiculous diabetic bull riding are the norm and not exceptions.
3
I was a regular viewer of local and network television but I only watch PBS now because of the wall to wall drug ads. They have ruined commercial television in this country and I suspect they are driving the cost of drugs through the ceiling.
5
It used to be that commercial speech was more limited than speech of natural persons. That seems to have disappeared in recent years, which is a tragedy. There is a reason for more limitations on commercial speech.
31
Who else remembers the first tv drug ads...?
They were all amazingly happy people, skipping over the rolling hills, with sublime looks on their faces. Often they were on sailboats or relaxing on their deck overlooking a mountain lake.
The voiceover would say something like "get your life back...feel good again..." And other hugely vague statements of well-being, ending with the now-familiar "ask your doctor if Euforia is right for you."
The deal was, and I suppose still is, that if they tell you what the drug is for, then they must list every single side effect.
If they don't outrightlynspecify the condition it treats, then they don't have to mention those nasty scary things at all.
But somewhere along the line, the analytics told them that the increase in demand from implanting the idea of both a new disease and the sure cure far outweighed all that scary verbal fine print.
Snake oil is still being sold. The stakes only get higher.
They were all amazingly happy people, skipping over the rolling hills, with sublime looks on their faces. Often they were on sailboats or relaxing on their deck overlooking a mountain lake.
The voiceover would say something like "get your life back...feel good again..." And other hugely vague statements of well-being, ending with the now-familiar "ask your doctor if Euforia is right for you."
The deal was, and I suppose still is, that if they tell you what the drug is for, then they must list every single side effect.
If they don't outrightlynspecify the condition it treats, then they don't have to mention those nasty scary things at all.
But somewhere along the line, the analytics told them that the increase in demand from implanting the idea of both a new disease and the sure cure far outweighed all that scary verbal fine print.
Snake oil is still being sold. The stakes only get higher.
1
Professor Vladeck's proposal of a two-year moratorium makes a lot of sense and seems also eminently defensible, both in terms of providing a waiting period to identify possible drawbacks and also to allow time for the drug dealers to "educate" physicians, who are the only people able to prescribe the medications.
I would go a couple of steps further and bar the deductibility as a business expense of advertising to the general public drugs and medical devices that are available by prescription or physician use only.
I would go a couple of steps further and bar the deductibility as a business expense of advertising to the general public drugs and medical devices that are available by prescription or physician use only.
26
There must be entire departments in Big Pill dedicated to coming up with new names that end in -avia.
Also, I suspect these are all the same three drugs, if the side effect warnings are any indication.
I enjoy the 'happy time' music softly played while the possible horrors are recited.
Then watch a year later when the ambulance chaser commercials solicit your participation in the inevitable legal actions to follow.
Also, I suspect these are all the same three drugs, if the side effect warnings are any indication.
I enjoy the 'happy time' music softly played while the possible horrors are recited.
Then watch a year later when the ambulance chaser commercials solicit your participation in the inevitable legal actions to follow.
Big Pharma....well ...call The Big Bad Fox....guarding ...ho ho ho...the
Hen House...which the Big Bad Fox owns and ....guarantees as SAFE to use.
forget the FDA..
The Big Bad Fox...is just getting Bigger...and Badder...than Ever...;and is
going to do some Big Bad Pharma trading as TPP...
Hey...no checks on those sad little doomed chicks in THIS Hen House.
Check it out...Editors...time for some real investigative...reporting...
Who's on Deck at the NYT for this ....or has Big Bad Fox got you hiding
under the chicken house...???
Hen House...which the Big Bad Fox owns and ....guarantees as SAFE to use.
forget the FDA..
The Big Bad Fox...is just getting Bigger...and Badder...than Ever...;and is
going to do some Big Bad Pharma trading as TPP...
Hey...no checks on those sad little doomed chicks in THIS Hen House.
Check it out...Editors...time for some real investigative...reporting...
Who's on Deck at the NYT for this ....or has Big Bad Fox got you hiding
under the chicken house...???
2
As I recall, several drugs that were heavily advertised have turned out to be ineffective and/or dangerous. A little help from the FDA would be appreciated. Also, some drugs, sexual enhancement drugs in particular, would have to be way over-priced to pay for all those boring ads which basically depict understated foreplay.
2
Ban all prescription drug advertising on TV!
10
I applaud the Editorial Board for writing about these drug company ads. These advertisements have been great "Turn-offs". Everyone I spoke about TV program ads they are disgusted when you see ladies soliciting for ED drugs, and wonder who would even bother taking drugs for other indications (depression etc) filled with so many side-effects. It is unfortunate that drug companies who have high profit margins for drugs can afford to pay to advertise during prime time programming. Drug companies as well as news networks need to show responsibility in what is being broadcasted.
4
Prescription drugs are being hawked to consumers for the same reason that ads for toys and sugary cereals are a ubiquitous presence on children's TV shows. In both cases, the idea is to get those watching the ads (patients, children) to pester the gatekeepers of the the product (doctors, parents).
36
"Solutions other than an outright ban are being discussed, like proposals to tax the ads, which the courts might deem an infringement on commercial free speech."
Why is commercial speech so important? What about the public's right not to be bombarded, bamboozled and hucksterized by these modern day snake oil sales? If we get to ask our doctors to prescribe the drugs of our choice doesn't that turn them into dealers?
"perhaps a television control device could allow consumers to block drug ads, if they want." My TV already has one of those.....the mute button. Which we use judiciously.
Why is commercial speech so important? What about the public's right not to be bombarded, bamboozled and hucksterized by these modern day snake oil sales? If we get to ask our doctors to prescribe the drugs of our choice doesn't that turn them into dealers?
"perhaps a television control device could allow consumers to block drug ads, if they want." My TV already has one of those.....the mute button. Which we use judiciously.
1
We should be skeptical of ALL advertisements.
4
My Grandma used to tell me when I was a kid about how the community doctor used to come around to all the houses, asking questions about how everyone was feeling, observing what was in the fridge/pantry, commenting on how all could feel better with simple, pragmatic suggestions. She said this noting she never had better health in her entire life than when this occured.
How did my grandma die? After years of going to the doctor, going to the hospital, complaining of symptoms, telling them how horrible she felt, and years of failure by big pharma and the medical industries to alleviate her problems, despite whatever 'advancements' in medication and treatment.
Both these institutions are focused simply on on thing. Big Money. The patient has not been the focus for a long time, now. If the patient were the focus, both these institutions would spend their time going around and asking questions in the community. Instead, they sit in boardrooms and have silly debates like this. Ads aren't the problem. It's the entire medical industry. Despicable. Both should be ashamed.
How did my grandma die? After years of going to the doctor, going to the hospital, complaining of symptoms, telling them how horrible she felt, and years of failure by big pharma and the medical industries to alleviate her problems, despite whatever 'advancements' in medication and treatment.
Both these institutions are focused simply on on thing. Big Money. The patient has not been the focus for a long time, now. If the patient were the focus, both these institutions would spend their time going around and asking questions in the community. Instead, they sit in boardrooms and have silly debates like this. Ads aren't the problem. It's the entire medical industry. Despicable. Both should be ashamed.
2
My guess is 90% of the pharmaceutical company employees have no understanding of what is being broadcast. Interactions and side effects make no sense most of the time. Most chemists have no understanding of drug interaction. Patients are paying for pharmaceutical advertising. Gross waste of money and many of the ads are shameful.
To me it is a place to hide their arrogance.
To me it is a place to hide their arrogance.
Everyone should know that all ads are to "sell" you on something, and of course be skeptical of them.
1
One very simple solution is the "mute" button on your remote control -- or, better yet, the "off" button.
1
What! You mean 'Big Pharma' is NOT an altruistic entity that only has the public health in mind? I'll keep that in mind the next time the panic button is pushed about the next catastrophic 'epidemic' and the ensuing pressure for everyone to be vaccinated with any one of the latest 65 proposed vaccinations.
I am of the opinion when I go and see someone who has spent many many years in school, and in practice, might be the one to suggest I may need a prescription, not I who knows diddly-squat about such things............
Look, we all know drug manufacturers get large subsidies for R&D, that they advertise dangerous products with false claims while diminishing the harms, that they gouge Americans on prices, that they do not negotiate with CMS, that they are exempt from the kinds of regulation that would apply to any other consumable product, that they legally evade taxes by moving offshore, and that they are very big, very profitable international conglomerates.
But the problem is not Big Pharma. The problem is money in politics and a compliant Congress that has long since favored donors over the people they represent. In short, Congress is killing America. Everything else is derivative.
But the problem is not Big Pharma. The problem is money in politics and a compliant Congress that has long since favored donors over the people they represent. In short, Congress is killing America. Everything else is derivative.
5
Commercial TV treats the viewer like a foolish consumer with a short attention span. The more you watch the less you'll know.
As a physician who has practiced medicine for more than 35 years I couldn't agree with you more. Let us tone it down. I also happen to agree fully with the AMA vote to recommend banning direct advertisement of prescription medications and medical devices to consumers, period. After all, these meds are, by law, only dispensed by licensed professionals and they are the ones whose vast majority want this practice to stop. And if the Congress hasn't the guts to ban all advertising let us then hope that those bought congress men and women would think of the safety of our citizens and can be convinced to go for outlawing direct consumer advertising for two years after a medication is approved by the FDA as Professor Vladeck suggested.
2
The pharmaceutical industry hasn't come up with any cures in decades. R and D used to mean research and development of actual cures nowadays it means annoying everyone with weird advertisements to 'develop' markets for existing pills.
1
If you have moderate to severe annoyance from drug ads try new Adtiva. Adtiva may not be for everyone.
43
Thank you, NYT Editorial Board for taking on this subject. As someone who comes from a family riddled with health care professionals, including a father, who continued to volunteer at clinics well into his dotage, all of whom rail against designer handbag, drug prices, I find myself particularly repulsed by the non stop, barrage of ads dunning patients to pester their doctors for the latest miracle pill.
Of course, it is a good idea for patients to educate themselves about their ailments and options, but glossy, simplistic tv ads are an overt insult to physicians, even those who share a degree of complicity, to suggest that they need a nudge from patient/consumers to consider a drug that most likely is sitting in a box of samples in an office closet, dropped off by another line item on the pharmaceutical expense list, the highly paid, door to door salesperson hawking physicians. At the least, Congress should insist that Big Pharma open up their books for the public to see a breakdown of their expenses; yes, research is hugely important and expensive, marketing, hugely expensive and less important than affordable drugs.
Lastly, the notion that listing "side effects" adds legitimacy to the claims is absurd, even comic. My favorite: an allergy pill that could cause "sneezing, itchy eyes, congestion, wheezing..." in other words, an allergic reaction.
Of course, it is a good idea for patients to educate themselves about their ailments and options, but glossy, simplistic tv ads are an overt insult to physicians, even those who share a degree of complicity, to suggest that they need a nudge from patient/consumers to consider a drug that most likely is sitting in a box of samples in an office closet, dropped off by another line item on the pharmaceutical expense list, the highly paid, door to door salesperson hawking physicians. At the least, Congress should insist that Big Pharma open up their books for the public to see a breakdown of their expenses; yes, research is hugely important and expensive, marketing, hugely expensive and less important than affordable drugs.
Lastly, the notion that listing "side effects" adds legitimacy to the claims is absurd, even comic. My favorite: an allergy pill that could cause "sneezing, itchy eyes, congestion, wheezing..." in other words, an allergic reaction.
1
Hey people! Spare yourself from the onslaught of depressing ads, reminders that ours is a wealth care system for Wall Street and not a health care system for the people. Unplug your cable and enjoy the side effects of saving money and feelings of elation that result from terminating the built in subsidies to Fox News.
One needs to realize that these ads are basically infomercials. They promote these drugs as being more effective and safer than they really are.
Read "Over Dosed America" by John Abramson MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2GcHqE8wjs
Read "Over Dosed America" by John Abramson MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2GcHqE8wjs
My favorite (probably for personal reasons) is, "If your anti-depressant isn't working, add Abilidy." Don't bother to take the time to check out your environenmet or search for the cause of your unresolved-but-medicated health issue. Just mix it up! Scramble it some more. You TOO can get to the point where you feel nothing.
And although the physicians claim their displeasure, they write the prescriptions. They hold the key and although they might complain about the ads they have control over whether the patient recieves the medications advertised. They can say, "No". It might affect their daily cash flow but I don't think the oath they take has anything to do with financial benefit.
And although the physicians claim their displeasure, they write the prescriptions. They hold the key and although they might complain about the ads they have control over whether the patient recieves the medications advertised. They can say, "No". It might affect their daily cash flow but I don't think the oath they take has anything to do with financial benefit.
Pharmaceutical ads may not be for everyone...including people without an MD. Take them off the air.
The timing of drug ads need to consider the possibility of young children watching the program tied to the advertising. So often am I watching a science or history channel program with my 10 year son, during the day or early evening, old only to have the erection pill people trotting out their latest suggestive commercial to talk about getting and keeping an erection. Really?
Funny as it might be, as an adult, to hear SpongeBob talking about his ED, I think, but could be wrong, that most parents of young children would be horrified to hear erection talk in the shows watched by their children. Yet with the timing of these ads, we aren't far from that.
Funny as it might be, as an adult, to hear SpongeBob talking about his ED, I think, but could be wrong, that most parents of young children would be horrified to hear erection talk in the shows watched by their children. Yet with the timing of these ads, we aren't far from that.
Some of these ads are, I believe, more subtly dangerous than even outlined in the article and some of the more cogent comments already posted. In particular, the adverts for Type II Diabetes medications. All of the people in these ads extollong the virtues of the latest and greatest pill, injectable, or biologic ($$$) seem to be obviously overweight to quite obese. Now, the link between weight and Type II Diabetes is well-established, but there seems to be a visual message in these ads: "Take our new med and you don't really need to lose that 20, 30, or more pounds your doctor hs been after you about for years." This is despite the disclaimers about diet and exercise in the ads. I'm not a physician, but I'm with the AMA on this one.
1
DUH. Advertising only adds to the COST of drugs. Is bribing doctors not enough?
That also adds to the cost of drugs. Haven't we had enough of bad (unethical) behavior from Big Pharma? On just one evening recently I wrote down the crazy names of the drugs advertised in two hours (mostly ones I had not heard of before and I watch a lot of TV)...five! If it weren't for the well-oiled Congress (another expense passed on to the patient), we could expect some proper action to prevent this robbery.
That also adds to the cost of drugs. Haven't we had enough of bad (unethical) behavior from Big Pharma? On just one evening recently I wrote down the crazy names of the drugs advertised in two hours (mostly ones I had not heard of before and I watch a lot of TV)...five! If it weren't for the well-oiled Congress (another expense passed on to the patient), we could expect some proper action to prevent this robbery.
2
Good luck trying to regulate drug advertising. According to our illustrious Supreme Court, corporations are "people"and entitled to free speech under the First Amendment.
2
Money-amplified speech is anything but free.
2
Ban the ads. Just get rid of them. They're irresponsible and unnecessary. The drug companies are the only ones who want them to exist, and their motives are somewhat less than pure. And what's the point of them anyway? It's not like people who watch them can just go out and buy them like the dugs like they can with regular consumer goods.
1
Drug companies, and for that matter, all Corporations are NOT people and should be restricted in what they can and cannot say to the public. All of them operate under a charter of the states and can be required to abide by guide lines as part of the chartering process.
It is unthinkable to realize that corporations of all types can lie to us on a regular basis, and most frequently, like our politicians, tell us half truths and obfuscate the truth whenever it is to their advantage.... and we all know the results.
It is unthinkable to realize that corporations of all types can lie to us on a regular basis, and most frequently, like our politicians, tell us half truths and obfuscate the truth whenever it is to their advantage.... and we all know the results.
Corporations incorporate in the states with the least rules.
1
Why should I have to "ask my doctor?" He knows my health history. His office has been invaded by drug company representatives who have left samples, pens, calendars, flashlights and lunch for the office staff. If he thinks that I need a certain drug, he'll suggest it to me. That's his job. It's not my job to make a market for it because I saw it mentioned on TV.
I'm tired of bathtubs and seductresses purring on beds during the evening news. And why should I have to read the current issue of Golf Digest to learn more ?
I'm tired of hearing long lists of what the bad side effects are, and how this particular drug can cure you or kill you, depending. And why is that the side effect of a drug to combat a particular problem could possibly be more of the problem itself ?
Why is it that the fine print at the bottom of the screen is unreadable on my 48 inch high definition screen ?
Finally, why can't these ads follow the TV cigarette ads into oblivion ?
I'm tired of bathtubs and seductresses purring on beds during the evening news. And why should I have to read the current issue of Golf Digest to learn more ?
I'm tired of hearing long lists of what the bad side effects are, and how this particular drug can cure you or kill you, depending. And why is that the side effect of a drug to combat a particular problem could possibly be more of the problem itself ?
Why is it that the fine print at the bottom of the screen is unreadable on my 48 inch high definition screen ?
Finally, why can't these ads follow the TV cigarette ads into oblivion ?
5
Think about how you would like to spend the 20 minutes you have with your doctor. Evaluating the latest (non-generic) copy-cat drug? Or discussing your joint priorities and goals of care-- including reviewing your record to avoid drug-drug interactions?
2
How much do all of these advertising costs add to the prices of already skyrocketing drug prices to the consumer? I'm especially saddened to listen to ads targeting cancer patients knowing how much this specialty treatment will cost! Stop advertising and use the money to lower prices for overcharged US consumers.
1
There is a reason why pharmaceutical companies are the biggest $ backers of congressional elections. Corporate free speech makes it possible for pharmaceutical advertisers to extract very large amounts of revenue, $300B per year, while at the same time receiving government protection from possible competitors (FDA clearance process). At the same time, product price is deliberately obscured and more importantly, largely covered by all of us through insurance and government payments. If patients had to pay the cost, or were even aware of it, sales would plummet, because many of the advertised drugs often offer very small (and uncertain) benefits.
Here’s an idea – Why not give pharmaceutical companies a choice? Corporate free speech is available for any product that is sold over the counter. In return for an FDA clearance, no advertising, period.
Here’s an idea – Why not give pharmaceutical companies a choice? Corporate free speech is available for any product that is sold over the counter. In return for an FDA clearance, no advertising, period.
There are so many genetics out there that the vast majority of people don't need name brand drugs for most illnesses.
My mute button really gets a workout because these commercials and all of the political commercials are tuned out when they come on. Sometimes it's a lot of work. And if you watch without the sound, you have no idea what the drug treats.
The song "Walk of Life" by Dire Straits used to be one of my favorites, but the over-use by the drug companies has made it almost unbearable to listen to.
And please, stop showing people in yoga poses. That's SO stupid!
The song "Walk of Life" by Dire Straits used to be one of my favorites, but the over-use by the drug companies has made it almost unbearable to listen to.
And please, stop showing people in yoga poses. That's SO stupid!
1
Unfortunately they are designed to fully communicate without sound with the use of any number of graphic messages. This has always been true to a certain extent but it has grown much worse with computer graphics, cartoon characters and bizarre visual psychological messaging.
Anyone who is swayed by these snake oil commercials deserves what they get.
2
Had to sit through Thanksgiving with relatives watching commercials for medication to treat opioid induced constipation. How about you stop taking opioids? This is getting way out of hand. Would love to see drug companies focus on new legions of antibiotics and less debilitating cancer treatments and stop inventing drugs that treat the side effects of drugs.
At the point you're advertising an anti depressant pill who's side effects include suicidal thoughts... It's time to stop and take stock of what you're doing.
1
People should be leary of any prescription drug as there is no perfect drug and many come with awful side effects-which is the reason the Physician's Desk Referrence Book on the drugs is so thick.
It's only been a few years since the advertisements for an anti cholesterol drug featured the dishonesty of a physician. We have had scores of other drugs, including antibiotics whose advertising led people to physicians where hey requested the drugs. Weak minded, greedy docs acquiesced while knowing the uselessness of these drugs. Hundreds of so called experts were paid by drug companies to endorse their harmful products. The only difference between those falsehoods of a decade ago and the present is that these speak about some of the side effects. Pro Publica had as series of publications which show the surface of nefarious relationships which adversely affect patients. Doctors, paid by Big Pharm feature in all of them.
If only people knew the QC that these ads go through while development. I admit they are annoying, BUT, what they do is keep physicians open-minded for when patients ask for these medications. Technology is changing medications, all physicians need to adapt as well. I could agree with this Georgetown proposition.
The formula is really pretty simple: costs + profit = price. Alternatively, in the medical/pharmaceutical world: charge whatever you think your shareholders will let you get away with, the more expensive the better. Of course we're paying for those irritating ads. They shouldn't be allowed.
1
Ads for prescription drugs should be banned pure and simple. They have skewed understanding of longterm chronic conditions, from blood pressure and cholesterol to arthritis, biasing public opinion towards ever more aggressive pharmaceutical intervention. They have "medicalized" a wide range of behaviors that were once accommodated as diverse personalities through social support, understanding and tolerance, but now -- even in a society that champions diversity ad nauseam -- must be "treated" and corrected. Beyond the specifics of this or that drug or condition, they have -- like all advertising -- sent a larger message, creating a "consumer" mentality about health care: the more the better, and the more pharmaceutically oriented the more efficacious. In today's world, any patient can easily research a condition or proposed treatment on the internet and find and evaluate a range of options, some from well-regarded academic or professional institutions, some from advocacy groups of different types (from drug companies to natural healing). There's no reason for the targeted ads that present consumers (who must work through a medical professional anyway) with a barrage of one-sided views.
35
We all hate Big Pharma. There is no doubt prescription drugs are hugely overpriced, thanks to the failure of Democratic and Republican presidents and Members of Congress to regulate drug prices (and ensure safety). But modern cardiology drugs kept my father alive for twenty years of a productive life after two heart attacks and strokes and are helping me do the same. The answer is appropriate regulation but don't expect that to happen as long as political campaign contributions trump effective law and regulation.
1
I would love it if prescription drug ads were banned completely. I can't stand them.
These ads have completely taken over advertising slots for certain types of programs, which we avoid now just because of the ads. They ruin the programs.
These ads have completely taken over advertising slots for certain types of programs, which we avoid now just because of the ads. They ruin the programs.
1
Gee whiz! If all those who objected to the ads would simply start writing the networks -- or, better yet, call their local TV station manager, not just the receptionist -- and register their complaints.
Write the FCC. Start an on line petition., Do something!
Perhaps the drug industry and the broadcast industry would "get the hint."
Write the FCC. Start an on line petition., Do something!
Perhaps the drug industry and the broadcast industry would "get the hint."
3
Ah, Pete, in San Antonio,
Lethargy, lethargy, football, lethargy, luxury cars and lethargy. Interracial conflict won't bring American society down, nor will Republicans vs. Democrats. It will be lethargy, lethargy, football, and the media fixation.
Lethargy, lethargy, football, lethargy, luxury cars and lethargy. Interracial conflict won't bring American society down, nor will Republicans vs. Democrats. It will be lethargy, lethargy, football, and the media fixation.
The damage is already done. Big pharma has successfully addicted close to 20 million Americans to their "happy pills" and another 40 million senior citizens are funding corporate coffers through medicare. Ever see how many pills a senior citizen ingests on a daily basis? This is by far the greatest travesty and fleecing of America that I'm aware of..
3
I find the ad for Cialis particularly sleazy. Do these guys really believe that they will be seduced by this totally sex laden model who is practically rubbing herself into you on TV if you take Cialis? And, do we have to be subjected to this semi porn every time we watch football or the evening news? ED is a medical problem.
5
'Decades ago, most drug ads appeared in medical journals, on the assumption that only medical professionals could weigh the risks, benefits and appropriate uses. '
As if doctors aren't influenced by 'ads' often in the form of drug salesmen. Statins are a great example here. Doctors have pushed them for years on anybody with 'high' cholesterol. We are now learning that this may not be such a good idea. They may do little to help people who haven't already experienced cardiovascular problems and may actually do them harm. I simply refused to take them after experiencing muscle problems, which disappeared shortly after I quit.
I am saddened to see so many seniors that I assist with Medicare Part D paying huge sums that they can't afford for drugs that I suspect aren't really helping them.
A big problem is that Big Pharma or 'academics' paid in part by Big Pharma do much of the so-called studies. Any that promote the favored drug are broadcast all over. Those that don't get buried.
As if doctors aren't influenced by 'ads' often in the form of drug salesmen. Statins are a great example here. Doctors have pushed them for years on anybody with 'high' cholesterol. We are now learning that this may not be such a good idea. They may do little to help people who haven't already experienced cardiovascular problems and may actually do them harm. I simply refused to take them after experiencing muscle problems, which disappeared shortly after I quit.
I am saddened to see so many seniors that I assist with Medicare Part D paying huge sums that they can't afford for drugs that I suspect aren't really helping them.
A big problem is that Big Pharma or 'academics' paid in part by Big Pharma do much of the so-called studies. Any that promote the favored drug are broadcast all over. Those that don't get buried.
31
The juxtaposition of the pharma ads with the national news makes for one of the funniest half hours on television, provided you have a sufficiently bizarre sense of humor. I think it is the disjointed combination of death, destruction, mortality and saccharine human interest stories, all related in a flat tone of normalcy that leaves one in a state of open-mouthed disbelief and deep offense- funny in other words.
1
Is it ABC, NBC or CBS that you are referring to? With ABC, only George Stephanopoulos can be taken seriously, sometimes. Otherwise, Disney takes over. With CBS, only 60 Minutes justifies air time. As for NBC, let's see who owns them besides the pharmaceutical companies? And the morning shows across the board are a peon to illiteracy. God help us all.
Why stop with TV ads? The same should be true for print. Open a copy of Time Magazine or something like that, and the first 10 pages are drug ads aimed at the demographic that actually reads paper magazines.
I remember once (before US News and World Report stopped printing) - that I counted the number of drug ads and compared it to the amount of content (articles) in that issue - and the drug ads outnumbered the actual article pages.
Sad. Of course, that's why they stopped publishing.
I remember once (before US News and World Report stopped printing) - that I counted the number of drug ads and compared it to the amount of content (articles) in that issue - and the drug ads outnumbered the actual article pages.
Sad. Of course, that's why they stopped publishing.
1
Important to remember that print ads don't SPEAK!
I whole-heartedly support your editorial. Apart from the reasons captured by you, the cost of prime-time ads constitute a major element of healthcare costs in our country. The ads--particularly print ads--- are a strange juxtaposition of exaggerated claims on one hand and a long list of possible side effects drafted by lawyers. Which part we the consumers are supposed to believe? I would rather like to listen only to my doctors and not either the marketeers or lawyers of drug companies.
2
Major element of healthcare costs? You must live in some other universe. And your doctors usually listen to drug companies reps.
Thanks for this great good sense recommendation.
1
Some OTC drugs are made in foreign countries where the labs are never
investigated by the FDA which authorizes the drug companies to do their
own investigation..
So...how about doing some Ida Tarbell investigation on this travesty...
So much for medical ethics...
and some MDs are a bit to eager to start someone who doesn't need an RX
on an irreversible RX regimen ...Check out the facts yourself is my advice
on RX and OTC ...and even the MDs....
Trust and Verify....on your own....because ask yourself ...do drug companies
really care...or do ALL MDs...really care about YOU...nope not all of them do.
investigated by the FDA which authorizes the drug companies to do their
own investigation..
So...how about doing some Ida Tarbell investigation on this travesty...
So much for medical ethics...
and some MDs are a bit to eager to start someone who doesn't need an RX
on an irreversible RX regimen ...Check out the facts yourself is my advice
on RX and OTC ...and even the MDs....
Trust and Verify....on your own....because ask yourself ...do drug companies
really care...or do ALL MDs...really care about YOU...nope not all of them do.
2
Misleading ads on televsion?? Say it isn't so!!
1
For an excellent expose of Big Pharma, see Dr. Marcia Angel's book, The Truth About the Drug Companies. Dr. Angel served as editor for the New England Journal of Medicine for many years. She knows whereof she speaks.
We should focus not only on the increased price of drugs due to drug companies' marketing and advertising. These ads are also a huge bonanza for Big Media, so also note Big Media happily counting its box office take. Sadly, any practice that profits both Big Pharma and Big Media is not likely to be rolled back. They both have deep pockets with which to lobby FDA, FCC, and politicians.
This advertising is not only intrusive but also overwhelmingly manipulative. Many of us would breathe a deep sigh of relief should the ubiquitous ED drug commercials disappear. Ironically, the most compelling argument for these ads by Big Pharma was that they would help to educate viewers about health issues. What a crock. The advertisements are formulaic in telling happy shiny stories of satisfied patients. They usually intentionally distract from their required recitation of side effects and counter-indications with visualized completion of the happy shiny story. They are part and parcel of corporate America's demand that our health care be an economic profit center as opposed to a human right and essential social service.
We should focus not only on the increased price of drugs due to drug companies' marketing and advertising. These ads are also a huge bonanza for Big Media, so also note Big Media happily counting its box office take. Sadly, any practice that profits both Big Pharma and Big Media is not likely to be rolled back. They both have deep pockets with which to lobby FDA, FCC, and politicians.
This advertising is not only intrusive but also overwhelmingly manipulative. Many of us would breathe a deep sigh of relief should the ubiquitous ED drug commercials disappear. Ironically, the most compelling argument for these ads by Big Pharma was that they would help to educate viewers about health issues. What a crock. The advertisements are formulaic in telling happy shiny stories of satisfied patients. They usually intentionally distract from their required recitation of side effects and counter-indications with visualized completion of the happy shiny story. They are part and parcel of corporate America's demand that our health care be an economic profit center as opposed to a human right and essential social service.
2
I have some family in the UK who are floored by the TV advertising they see when they come here. It's already been a few years since we had a conversation that they started with:
- "Is everyone in this country deathly ill with SOMETHING?"
- "Why is every other advert for some kind of medication?"
- "Why are these spots two minutes long?" (20 seconds defining the condition, the balance describing the awful side-effects of the supposed fix)
- Is the idea that everyone needs to be on some handful of medications?
I've never had a particularly good answer for any of these, other than the last one, which was "Of course it is."
- "Is everyone in this country deathly ill with SOMETHING?"
- "Why is every other advert for some kind of medication?"
- "Why are these spots two minutes long?" (20 seconds defining the condition, the balance describing the awful side-effects of the supposed fix)
- Is the idea that everyone needs to be on some handful of medications?
I've never had a particularly good answer for any of these, other than the last one, which was "Of course it is."
2
I think the drug ads are inadvertently hilarious. Lots of happy people, gliding through happy times, almost always in slow motion, accompanied by a litany of horrendous side effects.
1
The other evening during dinner we saw an ad that didn't look like a drug ad so I turned the volume up for a sec.
The words vomit and diarrhea were the only two words we heard.
The words vomit and diarrhea were the only two words we heard.
Colbert used to do a hilarious spoof of 'happy talk' side effects on his old show.
Some of the best actual side effects I have heard;
For a heart pill - heart attack
For a depression pill - depression and thoughts of suicide
For a sleeping pill - nest day drowsiness, inability to move
Some of the best actual side effects I have heard;
For a heart pill - heart attack
For a depression pill - depression and thoughts of suicide
For a sleeping pill - nest day drowsiness, inability to move
Exactly. I have noticed that the side effects are mentioned while smiling. happy people are cruising through life. We are all idiots to tolerate this stuff.
I figure this is part of a cycle designed to transfer wealth... push drugs that cost a fortune, wait five years for the attorney ads and litigation. We lose.
1
"David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, believes Congress should ban direct-to-consumer advertising for two years after a drug has been approved and put on the market. That would allow a brief period for adverse effects to be observed and might pass constitutional muster as a limited restriction to protect public health."
This is an eminently sensible and reasonable suggestion, one I hope Congress would consider. People in great pain or desperate for a cure may not comb the data from the trials that lead to approval, where (if the investigators are honest) some of the warts are revealed. So the sick may clamor for a drug that is, in truth, still in beta when it's rolled out to the general public. What happens then, to those who take it, becomes the basis of "post-marketing studies," which sometimes lead to revisions in indication and warnings on the product itself, or worse.
We also need more head-to-head studies to compare competitive drugs directly, but government will probably have to fund them. Pharma won't want to risk revealing that their product is less effective or safe than their competitor's.
This is an eminently sensible and reasonable suggestion, one I hope Congress would consider. People in great pain or desperate for a cure may not comb the data from the trials that lead to approval, where (if the investigators are honest) some of the warts are revealed. So the sick may clamor for a drug that is, in truth, still in beta when it's rolled out to the general public. What happens then, to those who take it, becomes the basis of "post-marketing studies," which sometimes lead to revisions in indication and warnings on the product itself, or worse.
We also need more head-to-head studies to compare competitive drugs directly, but government will probably have to fund them. Pharma won't want to risk revealing that their product is less effective or safe than their competitor's.
1
Or better yet ban them after say six months from approval. Of course the media would not appreciate the lack of money.
TV advertising by pharmaceutical companies should be illegal. They should only be allowed to "advertise" to the doctors who prescribe the medications.
1
Big PharmA ads should include the cost of the drugs they advertise with a bottom line warning especially for new FDA approved drugs: You may not be able to afford this medication; new drugs are expensive.
Like the cancer drug currently being offered at $35,000 PER MONTH.
I would back banning them completely. I cannot imagine what value they have and it encourages self-diagnosis and perhaps doctor shopping. Also, they are quite depressing as the voice-over lists the side effects and contraindications. It seems that the 6:30 (EST) news half hour is particularly filled with these ads, one after another. Luckily I have a DVR and can skip over them.
2
It's about time someone commented on it, I thought I was me or I was losing my mind.
It seems like it's been about the last 5 or 10 years, nothing but continuous drug ads....shingles, erectile dysfunction, cholesterol, heartburn, sleep aids, stay awake aids, etc., etc., etc., then don't forget the side effects.....it's enough make people crazy or turn them into hypochondriacs or just nuts.
Enough all ready!
It seems like it's been about the last 5 or 10 years, nothing but continuous drug ads....shingles, erectile dysfunction, cholesterol, heartburn, sleep aids, stay awake aids, etc., etc., etc., then don't forget the side effects.....it's enough make people crazy or turn them into hypochondriacs or just nuts.
Enough all ready!
4
When you see a TV drug ad, just remember you are paying for it every time you go to the pharmacy. Actually about 4.5 billion per year.
2
And you are getting free entertainment as well.
I agree fully that the drug companies need to show significant restraint and be fully accurate and forthcoming about the drugs they produce and advertise, I have to ask whether or not the Editorial Board of the NY Times has decided that the First Amendment to our Constitution should no longer be enforced?
This is the most fundamental of rights and, specifically, the right that allows the dear Editorial Board to continue to offer its opinions on any subject that strikes their fancy.
Sorry. The hypocritical nature of the Editorial Board's stance here is no only astonishing but disturbing.
This is the most fundamental of rights and, specifically, the right that allows the dear Editorial Board to continue to offer its opinions on any subject that strikes their fancy.
Sorry. The hypocritical nature of the Editorial Board's stance here is no only astonishing but disturbing.
What seems to be missing from this debate is a focus on physicians. While direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads heighten and expand awareness to the availability of prescription medications, consumers cannot get the product without a prescription from their physician. In other words, physicians are the gatekeepers. So a better question may be, "why are physicians writing prescriptions to their patients that may be unnecessary"? Because their patients are asking? We rely on physics to prescribe mediations that are necessary and appropriate. Is the AMA in favor of a ban on DTC advertising simply to stem patients questioning their physicians? Hopefully the patient-physician relationship has evolved past the "don't question me" attitudes of physicians to an open dialogue where patients feel empowered to participate in their own healthcare.
That being said, another element in DTC drug advertising, which may be problematic, may be the shift of the creation of these ads from the realm of "medical advertising agencies" that have a thorough knowledge of FDA requirements as well as an expertise in communicating the benefits and adverse effects of prescription drugs to "consumer advertising agencies" who approach advertising serious medications with the same flair as selling a cookie or a car.
That being said, another element in DTC drug advertising, which may be problematic, may be the shift of the creation of these ads from the realm of "medical advertising agencies" that have a thorough knowledge of FDA requirements as well as an expertise in communicating the benefits and adverse effects of prescription drugs to "consumer advertising agencies" who approach advertising serious medications with the same flair as selling a cookie or a car.
9
The ads are demoralizing and evil. The drug making CEO's should be put in cages and forced to watch these ads for twenty years.
Equally obnoxious is the one for retirement, "How much money is in your wallet?" Just what the economy needs, everyone not spending any money on anything. (But hyper inflated, market driven drugs.)
People were not meant to get a constant bombardment of information on their own mortality. I would vote for anyone who got these ads off the air. The pharmicutical industry is capitalistic madness personofied. Kidnaping health for ransom.
Equally obnoxious is the one for retirement, "How much money is in your wallet?" Just what the economy needs, everyone not spending any money on anything. (But hyper inflated, market driven drugs.)
People were not meant to get a constant bombardment of information on their own mortality. I would vote for anyone who got these ads off the air. The pharmicutical industry is capitalistic madness personofied. Kidnaping health for ransom.
3
Agree fully, these ads are often run when you sit down in front of the flat screen with your tweens or teens looking for some wholesome entertainment and big pharma trots out all the alarming side effects of these drugs or the sexy cougars advertising Viagra with its humorous potential side effects.
The ads are a total waste of time, as you'd need a doctor's prescription in any case to obtain most of the drugs. At best these ads are annoying with their robotic actors and faux empathy at worst they violate the medical fraternity's credo of doing no harm. It's money trumping best medical practice and exposing kids to absolute rubbish via the broadcast media.
The ads are a total waste of time, as you'd need a doctor's prescription in any case to obtain most of the drugs. At best these ads are annoying with their robotic actors and faux empathy at worst they violate the medical fraternity's credo of doing no harm. It's money trumping best medical practice and exposing kids to absolute rubbish via the broadcast media.
I understand we live in an oligarchy, but what is New Zealand's problem?
3
snip: the New Zealand Medicines Act 1981 failed to address DTCA, seemingly more by accident than design.
See https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/20...
See https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/20...
Er, is it just these ads we should be skeptical of? I mean all the others are sincere and honest, right?
1
By all means, ban drug commercials on TV and radio. The population at large is dangerously gullible when it comes to these @(%&#$ commercials. I agree with LaylaS below that Big Pharma is out to perpetuate the notion that price gouging is necessary to cover their research. As the former spouse of a physician, I cringe for the medical profession being besieged by half-informed patients asking their doctors if "this drug is right for you." Clinicians can use their time better than having to deal with patients telling them how to do their jobs. That said, there are intelligent ways for patients to take more responsibility for their own health. Reinforcing Bie Pharma's PR and marketing is not one of those.
Our medical extortion industry have our representatives bought and paid for and if our bribed elected pass sufficient success beneficial legislation for bribers they are given positions on the board of directors.
All American Legal Corruption!
All American Legal Corruption!
1
Bravo. The fact that these ads are illegal in almost the entire world says all you need to know.
4
What I find so entertaining about the drug ads is that as the side effects are being listed out loud, the picture shows the "patient" oh-so-happy, smiling, holding hands with his/her partner…I mean-really!! Big Pharma must think we are really stupid to fall for their advertising…get rid of it-NOW
3
can anyone tell me why those middle aged folks in th cialis commercial sit in different bath tubs
thats not conducive to a healthy sex life is it
thats not conducive to a healthy sex life is it
3
May this editorial, and the vociferous reader comments that follow, serve as a shot across the bow of every pharmaceutical company in America.
2
were i a doctor and a patient came to me seeking a drug he had seen on a telly advert id chuck him right out of th office
its as if you say to your doctor, well, you went to med school for a decade, true, but this advert on tv had such high production values it must be a good drg
its as if you say to your doctor, well, you went to med school for a decade, true, but this advert on tv had such high production values it must be a good drg
I recall a study from the nineties that showed a patient requesting a prescription by brand name had a 60% chance of receiving that drug. I'm sure that figure has improved. This is the "why".
Health plans and PBM's try to combat inappropriate use by creating rational steps to access (prior approvals, lab test results, etc) that patients and physicians find onerous.
In my pharmacoeconomics class some students came up with an interesting approach. Patients harmed by adverse effects of advertised drugs would represent an automatic class action with potential fraud penalties attached. If fraud was proven, marketing executives would face proscribed criminal penalties.
Advertising would stop overnight.
Health plans and PBM's try to combat inappropriate use by creating rational steps to access (prior approvals, lab test results, etc) that patients and physicians find onerous.
In my pharmacoeconomics class some students came up with an interesting approach. Patients harmed by adverse effects of advertised drugs would represent an automatic class action with potential fraud penalties attached. If fraud was proven, marketing executives would face proscribed criminal penalties.
Advertising would stop overnight.
1
The true insidious nature of the drug ads is to make people think taking powerful prescription medications for relatively minor conditions is perfectly normal and acceptable. It is not. This result lies beyond the offensive, boorish nature of the ads that list truly heinous side effects.
1
Drug ads are a legal ruse. When a patient asks for a drug by name, the doctor can't be accused of a conflict of interest when he's paid by the drug company to prescribe it.
1
I've never really understood why anyone would ask for a drug after watching or reading a pharmaceutical ad. Don't people notice that the cautionary messages comprise more than half the text, even when read at high speed or rendered in 6-point type?
I actually have one or two conditions that might be treatable with these drugs. But the litany of side effects sounds so much worse than the ailment, I decide to do without. For folks like me, at least, these ads act more as a warning about what to avoid than an enticement to try them.
I actually have one or two conditions that might be treatable with these drugs. But the litany of side effects sounds so much worse than the ailment, I decide to do without. For folks like me, at least, these ads act more as a warning about what to avoid than an enticement to try them.
1
Ah, yes. The constant barrage of the latest pharmaceuticals, all of which promise to make you better--except for a few possible side effects, such as oily discharge, internal bleeding, suicidal thoughts, and (my personal favorite) "fatal events." Inevitably followed by some 1-800-SHYSTER promising to make you rich if "you or a loved one" has experienced one of said side effects.
Pharmaceutical companies and lawyers: the scourge of the airwaves.
Pharmaceutical companies and lawyers: the scourge of the airwaves.
4
Medicine was once a profession where doctors could take as much time as necessary to care for each patient. Some did and some didn't, but they all could ff they wanted to. Now, how a doctor allocates his/her time is mandated substantially by the demands of the health insurance industry, the for profit hospital industry, the drug companies, and the government. Ask your Dr. if my drug is right for you is yet another example of how the quality time that your doctor needs to spend with patients is up for grabs by outside commercial interests. Did I mention the time lost to doctors in fighting with insurers to authorize payment to drug companies for expensive drugs that almost no one can afford???
1
I remember hearing, some years ago, about another rationale for these dreadful commercials; maybe someone can confirm? The idea was that the drug companies are required by law to broadly publicize the possible negative side effects of their products ('may cause death or increased risk of suicide'; 'pregnant women should not touch or handle a broken pill'; 'erections lasting more than 4 hours...' etc. etc.) -- and that they hit upon the plan to do this dreadful TV advertising so that they could cloak all that negativity in the shiny-sweet La-La Land scenarios of 'try our wonderful new product' -- AND ALSO TAKE A MAJOR TAX WRITE-OFF FOR THE COST OF THE TV COMMERCIALS because they fulfill the purpose of public education about side effects...! So it may be that the ads aren't even costing them anything -- but they do get reflected in inflated corporate budgets and drug prices, and they mislead the public, intrude in doctor-patient relations, and pollute the airwaves... (I do hope there's a better way to subsidize broadcast TV -- but that's another conversation...!)
2
Kill these and network news dies? It tells me who their audience is, but scares me- our current healthcare system is still unsustainable. Old people are funding the uber rich drug companies and they are tossing crumbs to the networks to do news.
1
This article and many of the comments are waving their arms and wailing, "What can we do, what can we do?" This is too easy. I remember the days when it was illegal to advertise prescription drugs to consumers on TV. There is nothing from a legal or constitutional perspective to prevent us from returning to those golden days (though, to be fair, we did have to watch endless ads for cigarettes). I used to work in the pharma industry, and I saw it decline from a respected business, held in some esteem as an endeavor that did good things in the world, to the currently-loathed and greedy "Big Pharma." This decline parallels almost exactly the rise of direct-to-consumer advertising, along with a host of regulatory and patent law changes. I think what I hate most about the advertising is the way it reveals the industry's absolute cynicism when it comes to the mandatory listing of side effects. The companies have smugly concluded that consumers pay no attention to this part of the ad, so they don't even mind running down the lists.
44
I sat through more than my fair share of drug ads, during my rare TV time yesterday, watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Eventually I lost interest in this event, as my connection to my fellow citizens during a national celebration was drowned out by drug ads which constantly shifted my focus from celebrating our connections to one another and our shared values, to these insidious encroachments by one of the least trusted corporate lobbying blocks that is raising prices on American Citizens, and re-pricing the costs of our healthcare by exponential increments.
2
Putting in this ban would certainly mean a drop in drug charges. We all know how expensive commercial ads are; why should we the people have to pay for them.
1
Thank you for this op-ed. I've been against these ads since they began, when i consulted for big pharma. These ads convince people they are sick somehow, and they do littlemore than fill big pharma's pockets. I know how sleazy this industry is. These ads need to go.
I like the ones that list side effects that go on forever and range from dizziness to thoughts of suicide.
1
Price of course is never mentioned. The heavily promoted "Jublia" for toenail fungus costs $500 for less than a teaspoonful but performs no better than current alternatives. The cost of this excess is reflected in higher insurance rates.
As Bill Maher said, if a doctor gives a patient a drug seen on tv, that doctor is a pusher, not a medical professional.
1
We are not a nation of the pharmaceuticals, for the pharmaceuticals and by the pharmaceuticals. I wish we had a government that under stood this.
Ads to consumers for medicines and medical devices should be banned. I'm always slightly amused at the ads. While we see actors portraying happy patients whose lives have presumably been improved the narrator tells us the many dangerous side effects ("including death").
"Free speech" is not free. It comes with its own side effects. Our courts are protecting and expanding the "speech" of corporations (Citizens United), while limiting the speech of individuals (gutting the Voting Rights act). It's clear who's in charge these days, and it ain't the ordinary citizen.
"Free speech" is not free. It comes with its own side effects. Our courts are protecting and expanding the "speech" of corporations (Citizens United), while limiting the speech of individuals (gutting the Voting Rights act). It's clear who's in charge these days, and it ain't the ordinary citizen.
1
Boy am I with you on this. Try watching the Network news programs from 5 to 6 o'clock. There are more commercials for all kinds of bogus drugs than there is news. The FCC should clamp down on these advertisements as false advertising.
Got dry eyes ? - - - -take a pill.
Got dry mouth ? - - - take a pill.
Can't get it up ? - - - take a pill
Won't go down ? - - - take a pill.
And all those millions of dollars they spend on advertisement is a TAX REDUCTION and written off accordingly.
Got dry eyes ? - - - -take a pill.
Got dry mouth ? - - - take a pill.
Can't get it up ? - - - take a pill
Won't go down ? - - - take a pill.
And all those millions of dollars they spend on advertisement is a TAX REDUCTION and written off accordingly.
3
How does the U.S. get to become any other country in the world but ourselves or New Zealand? Legislation, demonstrations, call our representative, boycott TV or a move to Canada?
We need to go back and not allow prescription drug advertising on TV as was done before August 1997.
It's specious advertising where the pharmaceutical companies try to hide the side effects by droning them on while cheerful scenes are shown and cheerful music plays.
It's specious advertising where the pharmaceutical companies try to hide the side effects by droning them on while cheerful scenes are shown and cheerful music plays.
2
My favorite is "this product is not designed to diagnose or treat any condition". Excuse me? Why sell it ?
1
As a member of the Baby Boom generation I have over the years watched how advertising directed at this large group has changed from youthful hip products to products to make you feel and look young to now with all the drug ads aimed at the old. It is all really ghastly. I agree the with sentiment of one comment about all the big pharma ads on network evening news programs being off-putting. They make one feel older, not better. Doesn't anyone under 60 watch the news? Baby Boomers let's get up and shout "no more pills", just as we shouted "no more war" in the 60's. On second thought we should be shouting both.
1
I wonder what would happen if the networks suddenly increased the cost of running these drug ads by, say, 4,000%?
the decision to allow direct advertising was shameful. and unfortunately, restrictions will never happen. the media is deeply dependent on those advertising dollars and losing that stream of revenue will not be allowed to happen.
the unintended hilarity is listening to the litany of possible reactions to taking these wonder drugs: major organ failure, leukemia, depression, suicide, and on and on... reactions that are far worse than the original ailment.
the unintended hilarity is listening to the litany of possible reactions to taking these wonder drugs: major organ failure, leukemia, depression, suicide, and on and on... reactions that are far worse than the original ailment.
2
Yes, you can escape the awful drug advertising (and all advertising) during the evening news--without Tivo! Here's how: Keep the remote in your fist. Begin with the local news at six p.m. They broadcast for ten minutes before advertising begins, so you can watch the local news for ten minutes to catch up on the latest murder and mayhem in town. When they say, "When we come back..." quick, switch to PBS. They should be just getting into a juicy story, and you will miss the local commercials. Here in Philly, it's best to skip the sports report on the local news, so stay with PBS until exactly 6:23 and, quick, switch back to the local news for the weather (those weather ladies are spectacular). Weather finished, switch back to PBS to see if anything important is going on--until 6:30. Then, you can go to the world news with Scott Pelley, but only for 15 minutes. Scott's got good video, but after his first 15 minutes, there is nothing but drug ads with a little news sprinkled in--fluffy news to boot. So quick, after 15, when Scott says, "...when we come back," switch back to PBS, just in time, usually, for their fluffy news, which is more sophisticated than CBS's. You get Jonathan Franzen instead of firemen rescuing hikers. Franzen is way better than Pfizer, though, which is all that is playing after 15 minutes on CBS. OK, voilà, it's 6:56 and you have missed all the drug commercials, which are worthless, since your doctor knows what he is doing better than you.
6
It seems that most big pharmaceutical companies focus more and more on consumer marketing of exceptionally profitable drugs that are very hard to differentiate from many of the existing drugs for the same conditions. A great deal of the old marketing techniques of giving "freebies" to doctors (ranging from outright cash payments to samples) are gone because of the perception that they created a conflict of interest for the doctor recipients. Unfortunately, the big drug companies merely switched tactics to drumming up demand amongst a public that is in a much worse position to understand all of the contraindications, side effects, and appropriateness for treatment of these highly complex, and often dangerous, medications. The ads follow patterns of forlorn, sad, depressed people resigned to a terrible fate at the beginning who, after taking the medication, are suddenly pursuing fulfilled, happy, creative and active lives. While this may be somewhat appropriate for cars, shampoos, appliances and other consumer products it is, in the case of these potentially harmful drugs, as inappropriate as showing a bunch of teenagers happily puffing away on unfiltered Lucky Strikes.
21
The World pharmaceutical companies promote their drugs with these advertisements, seeking to maximize the sale and use of their products. The American consumer, members of the most medically and psychologically needy generation in the history of this country, sees the advertisement and goes to his doctor and demands to be given the medication (the same thing is true of CT Scans and MRI's of all sorts and varieties). The doctor either complies or the consumer, nay, the victim of the advertisement, finds another doctor who will, and goes on the internet to castigate the doctor for failing to practice proactive medicine. I have seen this travesty on Facebook and other social media. When I suggested that the writers be more circumspect since they weren't experts on appropriate medical practice I was shouted down.
In the Aldous Huxley novel 'Brave New World,' the government uses a drug called Soma to keep the population in a constant state of dissatisfaction; to wit: they have been turned into mindless drones. Are we so very different? We have drugs to take to make us sexually ready; drugs to treat high blood pressure and cholesterol caused by foolish eating and a lack of any physical activity; drugs to wake us up and drugs to put us to sleep, and drugs to calm us down. What we don't have anymore is people who can deal with life by lifestyle modifications and rely completely on medicines. Something must be done to change this and removing the advertisements is a start.
In the Aldous Huxley novel 'Brave New World,' the government uses a drug called Soma to keep the population in a constant state of dissatisfaction; to wit: they have been turned into mindless drones. Are we so very different? We have drugs to take to make us sexually ready; drugs to treat high blood pressure and cholesterol caused by foolish eating and a lack of any physical activity; drugs to wake us up and drugs to put us to sleep, and drugs to calm us down. What we don't have anymore is people who can deal with life by lifestyle modifications and rely completely on medicines. Something must be done to change this and removing the advertisements is a start.
2
I can assure you I have Never, ever gone to a doctor & demanded a Prescription I have seen on TV. (As it is I go to a Doctor as little as possible anyway.) I wouldn't be able to do it, as I have made it my Life's occupation to mute every last Commercial that has appeared before my Eyes.
Now that cable has destroyed all competition, it is filled with more commercials than content. Like the shrinking Candy bar in the growing package - Corporations are actually to the point where they seemingly Begrudge providing ANY Product inside the Package ("What? You want something IN that wrapper"?)
Now that cable has destroyed all competition, it is filled with more commercials than content. Like the shrinking Candy bar in the growing package - Corporations are actually to the point where they seemingly Begrudge providing ANY Product inside the Package ("What? You want something IN that wrapper"?)
The entire medical system is broken in the USA. Go to any doctor, and you have a slew of reps ahead of you giving samples, buying expensive trips for the doctors, hiring the doctors to pitch their products. The TV ad market is pretty well dead except for sports for younger than 35, so its pushing spending for the Medicare crowd, makes sense in the uber-capitalist way of thinking. Needs a total clean up.
3
I am a pretty big free market economist, but drug ads are wrong.
Soliciting sickness is sick.
The doctors hate them. Patents come in with illnesses that they "think" they have. Is it just me, or are over half of all the ads for middle aged women?
Is this a target market? Sure looks sexist to me.
Give me your lonely middle aged woman who can not, pick one or all: a) sleep, b) hold her bladder. c) has muscle aches. d) has bad cholesterol, e) has diabetes, f) has mood swings g) has bad skin h) needs a catheter h) all of the above (I swear some ads will cure everything according to them).
Enough. Praying on ignorance, though the standard for political ads, should not be allowed with medicines.
Soliciting sickness is sick.
The doctors hate them. Patents come in with illnesses that they "think" they have. Is it just me, or are over half of all the ads for middle aged women?
Is this a target market? Sure looks sexist to me.
Give me your lonely middle aged woman who can not, pick one or all: a) sleep, b) hold her bladder. c) has muscle aches. d) has bad cholesterol, e) has diabetes, f) has mood swings g) has bad skin h) needs a catheter h) all of the above (I swear some ads will cure everything according to them).
Enough. Praying on ignorance, though the standard for political ads, should not be allowed with medicines.
4
I rate each drug on how many points it would earn in scrabble. (One drug, with and x, j, and z is worth 30 points. Imagine the triple score possibilities.)
I figure my method of determining if a drug is any good is about as credible as anything the advertisement tells me.
I figure my method of determining if a drug is any good is about as credible as anything the advertisement tells me.
2
I too find these adds annoying, and the amount spent on them, which could be used for research, appalling. However, with the exception of the meds for E.D., I can't remember the last time a patient came to me asking about a drug that they saw advertised on TV. I think the message pharma wants to send is that any symptom is a "disease" that needs a pill (the diseaseification of life, if you will). In reality, much of what we suffer from can be prevented or controlled by proper diet, weight control, exercise and not smoking. (mostly free, last time I checked). A lot of the rest is just normal aging, which we have to adapt to. Unfortunately in the office setting with its time constraints, it is often easier to write an rx than to inform and educate. Just some thoughts from a country doc.
55
"There's a sucker born every minute." [P.T. Barnum] Yea...and every one of 'em watches television too. Television commercials are propaganda, the likes of which would have had Joseph Goebbels crying with joy.
Justifiably and for the reason discussed in the article, the AMA has been trying to get prescription drugs and medial devices off television since they starting appearing in the 1980's.
I pity anyone who accepts television commercials as upfront, truthful and honest as, conversely, they are spun, biased and slanted by some of the most imaginative minds in the business.
(Of all the "cut the cord" benefits, freedom from irritating propaganda is second only to the joys of saving $100+ a month)
Justifiably and for the reason discussed in the article, the AMA has been trying to get prescription drugs and medial devices off television since they starting appearing in the 1980's.
I pity anyone who accepts television commercials as upfront, truthful and honest as, conversely, they are spun, biased and slanted by some of the most imaginative minds in the business.
(Of all the "cut the cord" benefits, freedom from irritating propaganda is second only to the joys of saving $100+ a month)
4
When I have to tell my doctor what treatments or pills I need, then I need to get a new doctor. If it's advertised on TV, I make a point to never knowingly fill that prescription even if doctor prescribes it.
5
Can all of Big Pharma's nuisance ads and commercials - transmitted at high-volume on TV. No one watches them, no one believes them and their names are grotesquely frivolous and annoying! The list of side-effects always delivered by an out-to-lunch sweet-voiced woman is vomitrocious. The mute button is active in the fingers of watchers.
3
Isn't Big Pharma one of the largest, if not the largest, of all corporate entities?
A very small bottle of lotion I often apply with a Q-tip for ears that itch has now zoomed to $1000. No doctor was able to diagnose my problem; that is why an eye ear nose doctor i went to was only able to guess at a temporary help to be used several times each week.
A very small bottle of lotion I often apply with a Q-tip for ears that itch has now zoomed to $1000. No doctor was able to diagnose my problem; that is why an eye ear nose doctor i went to was only able to guess at a temporary help to be used several times each week.
Only one solution to this. Eliminate patient satisfaction metrics in patient care. Let the doctors decide what pills, if any, they are going to take. Put all doctors on salary......the same salary......just like firemen, police and other public safety officers. If a doctor takes money on the side take his license...permanently. Once the drug companies realize that the doctor is going to decide what the patient takes and that they will have to present some sort of hard evidence all this will stop. Let the people who went to medical school make medical decisions. That is what we do in law. I don't know too many judges that did not go to law school. There are some, for sure, but not many.
3
Ads for nonprescription drugs are just as dishonest and obnoxious as ads for prescription drugs. Ads for fake "natural" remedies are even worse.
But they have lots of company. Everywhere we turn, we are exposed to dishonest, deceptive, and intrusive ads by all sorts of large corporations.
We like to complain about all of the dishonest, annoying political ads that we have to put up with, but let's not forget the fact that we've been bathed 24/7 our entire lives in commercial dishonesty.
But they have lots of company. Everywhere we turn, we are exposed to dishonest, deceptive, and intrusive ads by all sorts of large corporations.
We like to complain about all of the dishonest, annoying political ads that we have to put up with, but let's not forget the fact that we've been bathed 24/7 our entire lives in commercial dishonesty.
4
If an alien landed on earth and was exposed to an hour of medical ads interrupted by regular programming, he'd think that the biggest problem we face is, number one, erectile dysfunction plus a slew of other ailments.
2
Watching drug ads may cause nausea, hair loss, stomach ulcers, incontinence, atrial fibrillation, angina, stroke...
Ask your golden retriever if watching drug ads is right for you.
Ask your golden retriever if watching drug ads is right for you.
3
My working life was in the pharma and medical device field with countless physician friends in the US, Canada and the UK.
I have never heard a doctor say he/she favors DTC ads and several of my close friends, when asked directly, have said it is a terrible practice.
Ads for drugs with side effects far worse than the conditions they purport to treat are aimed at hypochondriacs, who don't know the difference between a diuretic and diarrhea.
Ban them completely, we would all be better of and we would reduce the nation's drug bill.
I have never heard a doctor say he/she favors DTC ads and several of my close friends, when asked directly, have said it is a terrible practice.
Ads for drugs with side effects far worse than the conditions they purport to treat are aimed at hypochondriacs, who don't know the difference between a diuretic and diarrhea.
Ban them completely, we would all be better of and we would reduce the nation's drug bill.
10
The ones I find particularly annoying (and disgusting) have little cartoon intestines or bladders following people around.. oh my lord why would anyone think this is appealing? I'll keep my organs inside me, thank you very much.
Listening to the litany of "possible" side effects, especially "sudden death" and "new congestive heart failure" or "huge, unsightly, weeping skin boils" (just kidding on that last but who knows?) always leads me to wonder "What person in their right mind would go anywhere near that stuff?!"
Listening to the litany of "possible" side effects, especially "sudden death" and "new congestive heart failure" or "huge, unsightly, weeping skin boils" (just kidding on that last but who knows?) always leads me to wonder "What person in their right mind would go anywhere near that stuff?!"
3
Such direct advertising relegates complex medications down to the level of selling shoes or cheese. If you listen to these ads the adverse effects are whizzed through while you are watching pleasurable images - basic psychology tells you that people will not remember what is being said when distracted by such images.
Big Pharma leads consumers around by the nose then lies about the purpose of these ads. Especially nasty is the creation of bogus ailments in the minds of the public - male testosterone deficiency or feminine hygiene products are glaring examples - which waste valuable clinic time explaining the real aims of Big Pharma and create unwarranted tensions between physicians who will not prescribe for these false ailments and patients who have been brainwashed.
Big Pharma leads consumers around by the nose then lies about the purpose of these ads. Especially nasty is the creation of bogus ailments in the minds of the public - male testosterone deficiency or feminine hygiene products are glaring examples - which waste valuable clinic time explaining the real aims of Big Pharma and create unwarranted tensions between physicians who will not prescribe for these false ailments and patients who have been brainwashed.
4
I find these ads hilarious. How else would I know to tell my doctor that I have been to countries where certain fungal infections are common? What countries? What fungal infections? Thanks but no thanks. My plan for staying healthy is to avoid drugs, doctors and hospitals wherever possible. Remember: they only get rich when you get sick.
3
The US is the only country (I think))that permits direct marketing to the end user of prescription drugs, the costs to do so being greater that the actual R&D. Not allowed elsewhere, those costs are not accepted as a part of cost of goods sold hence a lower expense to the end user. Until recently so many pharmatour buses showed up at Canadian border towns, they voided the inventories at drug stores causing a bill to be passed forbidding the filling of any my foreign scripts. This system of drug pricing controls goes hand in hand with the single payer aspect of overall healthcare.
1
TV is a drug we successfully and happily quit some 8 years ago. Don't have one. Haven't owned one since c. 2007. No withdrawal symptoms at all, just great relief. We got 'family', conversation, dinner table, reading and music in return.
No radio either.
Love Sam Island's illustration, so much better than anything on the boob-tube.
No radio either.
Love Sam Island's illustration, so much better than anything on the boob-tube.
1
Apart from their direct harm, drug ads also contribute to a greater sense of skepticism on the part of the public towards medicine and science in general.
Parents that (foolishly) forgo vaccines for their children are often motivated by a suspicion that the medical/pharmaceutical industry is all about profit and can't be trusted at all. Who can blame uninformed citizens for the skepticism, in the face of the constant bombardment by pharma-ads?
Parents that (foolishly) forgo vaccines for their children are often motivated by a suspicion that the medical/pharmaceutical industry is all about profit and can't be trusted at all. Who can blame uninformed citizens for the skepticism, in the face of the constant bombardment by pharma-ads?
Thanks in large part to the deregulation of the FCC during the Reagan Administration and inactivity by the FCC, FTC and FDA, power and profit driven entities -- drug companies to political groups in particular -- have the freedom to lie to the American people.
It used to be the threat of network sensors or FCC/FTC fines would make advertisers prove every claim they make prior to an ad airing. In many consumer product channels, this still holds true. So why is our government allowing drug companies to lie to us? That, unfortunately, is not difficult to figure out. The pharmaceutical lobby is one of the largest in our country.
A recent study estimates 28% of prescriptions written now are a result of consumer request, not doctor diagnosis. Profit is driving consumer directed drug ads, not the feigned altruism of pharmaceutical companies who want to inform individuals and families to promote wellness.
It used to be the threat of network sensors or FCC/FTC fines would make advertisers prove every claim they make prior to an ad airing. In many consumer product channels, this still holds true. So why is our government allowing drug companies to lie to us? That, unfortunately, is not difficult to figure out. The pharmaceutical lobby is one of the largest in our country.
A recent study estimates 28% of prescriptions written now are a result of consumer request, not doctor diagnosis. Profit is driving consumer directed drug ads, not the feigned altruism of pharmaceutical companies who want to inform individuals and families to promote wellness.
9
Democrats continue to cling to the unsupported notion that the Democrats are pro-consumer. Sarah lays the blame for this pharmaceutical issue on the Republicans and big pharma lobbyists, as if the Democrats weren't complicit in this and as if they haven't had numerous opportunities to correct the situation.
"In 1962, a law was passed that barred the F.D.A. from requiring prior approval for the content of drug ads."
In 1962, we had a Democratic president and both chambers of congress were controlled by Democrats.
"In 1962, a law was passed that barred the F.D.A. from requiring prior approval for the content of drug ads."
In 1962, we had a Democratic president and both chambers of congress were controlled by Democrats.
Urizen attempts to twist my comment into Democrat vs. GOP. Sorry to disappoint, Urizen, but I am an issues focused independent, sans political agenda. As a consumer healthcare advocate, I want all persons to be told the truth about pharmaceuticals and all other issues regarding our care on our airwaves. The issue of truth, especially as it relates to drug advertising, should always remain one about the wellness of people, not politics.
Drug ads are more pervasive than all the other types of advertisements put together. They are the most lethal. Get rid of them, like cigarettes.
6
As with all advertising, but especially drug advertising, I automatically press the mute button on my TV's remote control device. Why drug companies squander billions of dollars advertising their already ludicrously expensive products makes no sense given that nobody with a grain of sense believes what they say about them.
5
They don't "squander" their money. Those ads drive a lot of business, and they work. Your fallacy is in the notion that they rely on people who have "a grain of sense."
Wow -- so now that the genie is irrevocably out of the bottle, the tired old AMA speaks up???
Where were they decades ago when they could have done what they tell patients to do -- practice prevention??
Many had expected the then almighty AMA to boldly take actipn. But so many powerful docs are tied to Rx money, and so many others saw drug ads for designer diseases as a way to increase office visits, that they never enjoined the fight.
Rx companies are now so dependent on advetising to drive patients to docs, and counting on busy or bribed docs to overprescribe, that they'll use their almighty lobbying power to leave the AMA in the dust.
Where were they decades ago when they could have done what they tell patients to do -- practice prevention??
Many had expected the then almighty AMA to boldly take actipn. But so many powerful docs are tied to Rx money, and so many others saw drug ads for designer diseases as a way to increase office visits, that they never enjoined the fight.
Rx companies are now so dependent on advetising to drive patients to docs, and counting on busy or bribed docs to overprescribe, that they'll use their almighty lobbying power to leave the AMA in the dust.
3
This problem may be significantly worse than implied in the editorial. Fifteen or so years ago the NYT Magazine exposed a drug company's "study" of a very popular antihistamine touted to not cause sleepiness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescript...
The company's spokesperson affirmed to the Times, apparently with a straight face, that the study was designed to determine a dosage where the drug (1) was more effective than and (2) caused no more sleepiness than a sugar pill. Its efficacy vs. other antihistamines was not studied.
I believe it was in that same article (I could be wrong here--age) that it was alleged that drug companies' marketing firms were buying up testing labs so they could more directly structure and conduct studies whose results were designed to support already-developed marketing campaigns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescript...
The company's spokesperson affirmed to the Times, apparently with a straight face, that the study was designed to determine a dosage where the drug (1) was more effective than and (2) caused no more sleepiness than a sugar pill. Its efficacy vs. other antihistamines was not studied.
I believe it was in that same article (I could be wrong here--age) that it was alleged that drug companies' marketing firms were buying up testing labs so they could more directly structure and conduct studies whose results were designed to support already-developed marketing campaigns.
1
I enjoy the list of possible side effects including death to treat afflictions that seem a lot less lethal than the drug.
But seriously, these expensive ads and lengthy promotions for OPDIVO never mention the price of the drug ($!2,000 a month, $1,600 co-pay). I'm using the drug and all it promises is 3.2 months of extended life—my Medicare pays for the drug and a third party pays the co-pay. I have no idea what Bristol Myers pays for the ads but they are melodramatic, scary, portentous and misleading.
But seriously, these expensive ads and lengthy promotions for OPDIVO never mention the price of the drug ($!2,000 a month, $1,600 co-pay). I'm using the drug and all it promises is 3.2 months of extended life—my Medicare pays for the drug and a third party pays the co-pay. I have no idea what Bristol Myers pays for the ads but they are melodramatic, scary, portentous and misleading.
3
This is the problem with living in a free country.
Sometimes people will say things you don't like. Some of these things will be, in your opinion, misleading to the public, to the detriment of society. In a free country the reaction to this is "Deal with it." One might deal with it by offering your own opinion, or simply recognizing that in a nation with over 300 million people, not everyone will agree with you.
The solution is NOT to require those whose opinions challenge yours to submit their proposed speech to the Ministry of Truth for government approval before they speak.
If government regulation of public speech is such a good idea, then perhaps the Times will tell us to which federal agency it submits its articles for approval before publishing them?
Drug companies should no more need government approval to publish an ad than does the Times to publish an editorial.
Free speech. Deal with it.
Sometimes people will say things you don't like. Some of these things will be, in your opinion, misleading to the public, to the detriment of society. In a free country the reaction to this is "Deal with it." One might deal with it by offering your own opinion, or simply recognizing that in a nation with over 300 million people, not everyone will agree with you.
The solution is NOT to require those whose opinions challenge yours to submit their proposed speech to the Ministry of Truth for government approval before they speak.
If government regulation of public speech is such a good idea, then perhaps the Times will tell us to which federal agency it submits its articles for approval before publishing them?
Drug companies should no more need government approval to publish an ad than does the Times to publish an editorial.
Free speech. Deal with it.
1
Recently, a heavy TV ad campaign has been running for a drug that is targeted toward a specific type of lung cancer.
1. How in the world is the layperson supposed to know what the best drugs are to treat their condition? Cancer treatment is not DIY.
2. If this drug is so wonderful and your doctor doesn't know abut it, then get another doctor.
Try this. The next time you watch prime time TV for about one hour, make a hash mark in column for every commercial about drugs you see and make a hash mark in another column for every other kind of commercial.
Pick up any magazine and count the pages of ads for drugs and compare that to all the other ads.
The amount spent on drug ads is many tens of billions of dollars. Years ago, I read a statistic that drug companies spend $8 billion a year just to market to doctors. I'm sure that number is much higher now.
The drug companies are constantly trying to develop products they can sell instead of products that reduce human suffering. There is enough suffering going around that there is no need to advertise it to increase demand to relieve it. The whole drug industry is a money gouging cartel that exists to enrich shareholders.
The argument that without the profit motive, no new drugs will be developed. Nonsense! Scientists are not motivated by profit, but by research. If they worked for the taxpayer, we would still get new drugs and they wouldn't cost $150,000.
1. How in the world is the layperson supposed to know what the best drugs are to treat their condition? Cancer treatment is not DIY.
2. If this drug is so wonderful and your doctor doesn't know abut it, then get another doctor.
Try this. The next time you watch prime time TV for about one hour, make a hash mark in column for every commercial about drugs you see and make a hash mark in another column for every other kind of commercial.
Pick up any magazine and count the pages of ads for drugs and compare that to all the other ads.
The amount spent on drug ads is many tens of billions of dollars. Years ago, I read a statistic that drug companies spend $8 billion a year just to market to doctors. I'm sure that number is much higher now.
The drug companies are constantly trying to develop products they can sell instead of products that reduce human suffering. There is enough suffering going around that there is no need to advertise it to increase demand to relieve it. The whole drug industry is a money gouging cartel that exists to enrich shareholders.
The argument that without the profit motive, no new drugs will be developed. Nonsense! Scientists are not motivated by profit, but by research. If they worked for the taxpayer, we would still get new drugs and they wouldn't cost $150,000.
5
Just to disillusion you a little - in USSR and now Russia essentially all scientists were paid by the government, and R&D worforce (including many biologists, chemists, etc.) until the collapse of the Soviet Union had been larger than in the U.S. How many drugs on the market, exactly, do you know to have been invented or developed there?
1
Near the end of an appointment recently, a very nice 83 year old man, married for 60 years, asked me as I was about to walk out of the examining room, "Doc, I just have one more question..... is my heart healthy enough for sex?" His wife, who was sitting in the room with us, turned beet red, and my patient, his wife and I all shared a really good laugh.
On a more serious note, I find direct to consumer advertising useless, patients rarely, if ever, ask about a particular drug, and the price of drugs keep skyrocketing. A recent example is the new "blockbuster" PCSK9 inhibitors, over $14,000 per year to lower cholesterol. Have been released without any outcomes data yet.
I bargain with people on a daily basis, which drugs they can and will take, because they just can't afford these extraordinary prices. Even with the "lowest branded co-pay".
Advertising drugs adds to this and is immoral.
On a more serious note, I find direct to consumer advertising useless, patients rarely, if ever, ask about a particular drug, and the price of drugs keep skyrocketing. A recent example is the new "blockbuster" PCSK9 inhibitors, over $14,000 per year to lower cholesterol. Have been released without any outcomes data yet.
I bargain with people on a daily basis, which drugs they can and will take, because they just can't afford these extraordinary prices. Even with the "lowest branded co-pay".
Advertising drugs adds to this and is immoral.
9
We can thank the Federal Reserve Bank for maintaining artificially low interests rates which has caused this cancer namely M&A transactions in the pharma industry. With virtually no interest costs, these firms can acquire drugs and jack up prices while using tv ads to drive top line growth. Yes, this in fact is called inflation and if we had higher rates, you would see this cancerous business model collapse.
1
This was a discussion we had yesterday as we were bombarded with drug ads during the games.
Despite the inappropriateness of information in the hands of the non-professional, despite having to hear the appalling list of conditions that may arise, despite that constant reminder of a laundry list of medical conditions that human body can suffer when you just want to relax in front of the tele...
...the question I keep coming back to is: How much does Squibb (or any other) make in profit that running an ad a dozen times during primetime network national broadcast makes business sense. Especially considering the drug is for a small subset of lung cancer patients?
What would be better, less expensive drugs that your doctor recommends or more expensive drugs that an actor describes?
Despite the inappropriateness of information in the hands of the non-professional, despite having to hear the appalling list of conditions that may arise, despite that constant reminder of a laundry list of medical conditions that human body can suffer when you just want to relax in front of the tele...
...the question I keep coming back to is: How much does Squibb (or any other) make in profit that running an ad a dozen times during primetime network national broadcast makes business sense. Especially considering the drug is for a small subset of lung cancer patients?
What would be better, less expensive drugs that your doctor recommends or more expensive drugs that an actor describes?
This otherwise excellent commentary does not address the contribution of direct to consumer advertising to the overall cost of prescription drugs (and health care costs). Marketing and sales typically account for greater than 30% of a pharmaceutical company's operating budget. Thus, for a pill that costs $3.00, a dollar of that price covers marketing and sales costs. Prescription drugs are not tooth paste. They are products that should be selected by trained professionals based on their scientific knowledge. The public should not be prescribing for themselves. Should we, the public, be paying for the cost of marketing to ourselves?
1
How do ads work out for New Zealand?
More important, this is a pipe dream because of both drug and marketing lobbies.
And forget about approved drugs, BioMarin Pharmaceuticals's DMD (Muscular Dystrophy) is having problems getting a nod from the FDA Panel and the drug company has already mobilized its constituents to get it approved.
That upshot, you need to fund FDA properly first, then make it apolitical like the Federal Reserve and maybe restraining the drug lobby is another way to bargain with its marketing restraint. And how about doctor education? Offhand, I read one report saying some doctors don't even know there are medications out there that could lower the risk of HIV infection. But of course, that in itself is a can of worms, just as people would wave their 1st Amendment banner to hijack the advertisement restraint.
More important, this is a pipe dream because of both drug and marketing lobbies.
And forget about approved drugs, BioMarin Pharmaceuticals's DMD (Muscular Dystrophy) is having problems getting a nod from the FDA Panel and the drug company has already mobilized its constituents to get it approved.
That upshot, you need to fund FDA properly first, then make it apolitical like the Federal Reserve and maybe restraining the drug lobby is another way to bargain with its marketing restraint. And how about doctor education? Offhand, I read one report saying some doctors don't even know there are medications out there that could lower the risk of HIV infection. But of course, that in itself is a can of worms, just as people would wave their 1st Amendment banner to hijack the advertisement restraint.
1
exercise your right to not listen to someone elses free speech
shut th tv
shut th tv
Nearly identical phenomena with advertising for charter schools.
Except there are no disclaimers on ads for charter schools.
Except there are no disclaimers on ads for charter schools.
1
Now just one minute! Don't take my right of free speech away. I have the right to make people think they are sick and to push drugs, legally, of course, on them.
Yes, it is VERY expensive to advertise, but what do you think a new drug costs to get approved? Vote republican and we can remove all those messy rules and regulations and release a drug the minute we think of it. If a few people die, so what? They were poor and not white, so they don't count.
How can I become the richest industry in the world from other people's sickness and misery if you won't let me get my poison out there and advertise, advertise, advertise?
(All medications are poison; you can die from the disease or from the cure--your choice.)
Yes, it is VERY expensive to advertise, but what do you think a new drug costs to get approved? Vote republican and we can remove all those messy rules and regulations and release a drug the minute we think of it. If a few people die, so what? They were poor and not white, so they don't count.
How can I become the richest industry in the world from other people's sickness and misery if you won't let me get my poison out there and advertise, advertise, advertise?
(All medications are poison; you can die from the disease or from the cure--your choice.)
2
You had me until the last sentence, which is nonsense.
The right to free speech is essentially binary.
You either have it or you don't unless there is an immediate and present danger in what you have to say...as in screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.
If the government can ban or prior restrain speech, richopp, your right to comment on the NY Times is in danger of being abridged.
What part of "pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" don't you understand, sir?
You either have it or you don't unless there is an immediate and present danger in what you have to say...as in screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.
If the government can ban or prior restrain speech, richopp, your right to comment on the NY Times is in danger of being abridged.
What part of "pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" don't you understand, sir?
1
The continued empowerment of big pharma was ignored during the creation of Obamacare- the democrats found it easier to squeeze providers- physicians and hospitals- rather than insurance companies and big pharma. A wise president would have tied everything into the ACA- tort reform, drug profit capping- but the dems are as deep into the lobbyist pockets as is the GOP. The GOP is just honest about it.
Can't we put Congress in a locked room and make them watch these commercials over and over till they realize what we're being subjected to? I keep thinking if they really knew, they'd put a stop to it--or am I giving them too much credit?
Clearly the pharmaceutical companies and the money they make and spend off the backs of sick people is out of control. It's pathetic. It has to stop. In the meantime, do all you can to avoid watching--fast forward and or swear never to buy, never to mention to your doc and complain to everyone you can think of. Look what happened with cigarettes and smoking. It's possible. Keep fighting!
Clearly the pharmaceutical companies and the money they make and spend off the backs of sick people is out of control. It's pathetic. It has to stop. In the meantime, do all you can to avoid watching--fast forward and or swear never to buy, never to mention to your doc and complain to everyone you can think of. Look what happened with cigarettes and smoking. It's possible. Keep fighting!
11
does your telly turn itself on and force you to watch ?
perhaps buy a new set
perhaps buy a new set
Unfortunately, Congressmen only care about how much money they receive from the drug industry. Another benefit of Citizens United, because money is speech and apparently the more you have the more speech you are entitled to.
No, it TIVO's so I can fast forward. I won't watch anything with commercials--especially medicine commercials. You should try it. It saves time, too.
'Ask your doctor'.
He or she can always say, 'no, that particular drug would not be right for you.'
If you don't trust your doctor's judgement or learning in these matters to the degree that you would take the word of a TV ad over his, why are you going to that doctor? (But that's a different discussion.)
Patients will 'demand' the inappropriate drugs? What will they do? Hold the doctor at gunpoint and force him to write scrip?
I don't like such ads on principle. Just as I don't like ads for payday loan companies, lawyers chumming the water for class action or personal injury plaintiffs (Has anything bad ever happened to you? Sue someone!), or fast-food calorie-bomb junk, or gadgets that will be obsolete before you get them out of the clamshell packaging. But ultimately you can't protect consumers from their own stupidity, and there are a lot worse problems with our 'health care system' (read those as the sneeriest of sneer quotes) than this.
He or she can always say, 'no, that particular drug would not be right for you.'
If you don't trust your doctor's judgement or learning in these matters to the degree that you would take the word of a TV ad over his, why are you going to that doctor? (But that's a different discussion.)
Patients will 'demand' the inappropriate drugs? What will they do? Hold the doctor at gunpoint and force him to write scrip?
I don't like such ads on principle. Just as I don't like ads for payday loan companies, lawyers chumming the water for class action or personal injury plaintiffs (Has anything bad ever happened to you? Sue someone!), or fast-food calorie-bomb junk, or gadgets that will be obsolete before you get them out of the clamshell packaging. But ultimately you can't protect consumers from their own stupidity, and there are a lot worse problems with our 'health care system' (read those as the sneeriest of sneer quotes) than this.
19
Doctors are busy, and it's faster and easier to write the scrip than to have a long debate. Big Pharma knows this, and that's why it's smart for them to spend millions on marketing to turn patients into unpaid drug reps.
There is a reason why no other major country permits drug marketing direct to consumers. It's good for Pharma and its collective wallet and bad for people and their collective wallet.
There is a reason why no other major country permits drug marketing direct to consumers. It's good for Pharma and its collective wallet and bad for people and their collective wallet.
48
'Ask your doctor...' about a drug whose name you can barely pronounce, that treats a condition you may fantasize you have with no real test results or bloodwork that indicates such, during (if you are lucky) a rushed ten minutes appointment after you have already been waiting an hour-and-a-half? This is not the way to get proper medical treatment under the best of circumstances. Complex drugs are not Burrito Supremes at a Taco Bell drive-up window.
1
"... What will they do? Hold the doctor at gunpoint and force him to write scrip?..."
No, they will go "doctor shopping" until they find a doc who will write the scripts that they want. Taking their insurance money with them.
No, they will go "doctor shopping" until they find a doc who will write the scripts that they want. Taking their insurance money with them.
2
“Consumers should be skeptical of prescription drug advertisements.” Not an easy thing to do for people who are not skeptical about advertisement as a whole.
1
As you say, "Decades ago, most drug ads appeared in medical journals ...." I remember those days fondly, and am continuously shocked by drug companies shilling their latest products to the public in highly polished TV ads.
5
In addition to creating product awareness, the constant repetition of happy people taking drugs with dangerous side effects is designed to immunize our minds to the side effects so that one is more likely to overlook the negatives. This, I feel, is the reason that ads should be banned for any drug that has dangerous side effects, even if only a small population would be harmed.
3
There is no reason to be advertising directly to the public…..like advertising alcohol & cigs to little kids. This is a very bad idea for many reasons. We never had these ads in the past and they should be eliminated, no reason other then their greed to advertise to the public.
3
As an MD for over 40 years I have watched how advertising has taken over our profession. I remember when it was an outrage when MDs took out yellow page ads---I know--How quaint. Lawyers yeah--but doctors of medicine?
Then it was drugs...but only over the counter drugs. Hard to forget the Excedrin commercials with a hammer bashing away on some miserable patient’s head!
Then Viagra, Prilosec, but pharm companies with anti-depressants to sell went all out and psychoactive drugs became the number one selling med in the USA.
Then I saw the ads for Nivolumab for ADVANCED NON–SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER! Wow! People looking up in an Orwellian way to ads on the sides of towering office buildings. That’s a VERY specific drug for only a subset of subset of people with a relatively rare type of metastatic lung cancer! It’s not a chemotherapy drug...but an immunosuppressive treatment that costs $143,000 a year which MOST insurances will NOT cover. It “might” extend life for a year at most? It does not promise a cure. And there are three pages of terrible side effects that can cause early death.
But here’s the kicker. The stigma of lung cancer is that “most” lung cancer in men is caused by smoking. (In women only 20% of lung cancers can be traced to smoking or even second hand smoking.) This drug in essence says “You are worth it! You shouldn’t be a pariah for a cancer that YOU probably brought on”...so these patients will pay anything to get rid of that stigma.
Then it was drugs...but only over the counter drugs. Hard to forget the Excedrin commercials with a hammer bashing away on some miserable patient’s head!
Then Viagra, Prilosec, but pharm companies with anti-depressants to sell went all out and psychoactive drugs became the number one selling med in the USA.
Then I saw the ads for Nivolumab for ADVANCED NON–SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER! Wow! People looking up in an Orwellian way to ads on the sides of towering office buildings. That’s a VERY specific drug for only a subset of subset of people with a relatively rare type of metastatic lung cancer! It’s not a chemotherapy drug...but an immunosuppressive treatment that costs $143,000 a year which MOST insurances will NOT cover. It “might” extend life for a year at most? It does not promise a cure. And there are three pages of terrible side effects that can cause early death.
But here’s the kicker. The stigma of lung cancer is that “most” lung cancer in men is caused by smoking. (In women only 20% of lung cancers can be traced to smoking or even second hand smoking.) This drug in essence says “You are worth it! You shouldn’t be a pariah for a cancer that YOU probably brought on”...so these patients will pay anything to get rid of that stigma.
9
I agree that ad is creepy and repugnant.
The only upside of the current pharm situation is that with no-holds-barred price escalations, consumers may stop taking them altogether. Then we could put an end to unnecessary medicating and start treating health holistically.
Holistically treat my cancer? No thanks. I have kids to raise.
Pharma is needed, but must be regulated effectively, as it is in other nations.
Pharma is needed, but must be regulated effectively, as it is in other nations.
Three unrelated thoughts:
Just the other day a patient nailed it. He pointed out the absurdity of showing butterflies, smiles and high fives while the voice over warns all the ways the drug can kill you.
My experience is that patients rarely as for advertised drugs. And what few do are out of luck because new designer drugs are not on their insurance formulary.
The fabricated diseases are hilarious. If it has initials, it probably did not exist prior to the drug. Do you suffer from nonsense drug advertising, NDA?
Just the other day a patient nailed it. He pointed out the absurdity of showing butterflies, smiles and high fives while the voice over warns all the ways the drug can kill you.
My experience is that patients rarely as for advertised drugs. And what few do are out of luck because new designer drugs are not on their insurance formulary.
The fabricated diseases are hilarious. If it has initials, it probably did not exist prior to the drug. Do you suffer from nonsense drug advertising, NDA?
4
What is going on? You can't watch a football game anymore without seeing more commercials than game. They should have an award given out to the network who shows the most commercials during a game. It's no wonder the mute button on your TV remote is red that glows in the dark.
1
Of course patients don't ask for these drugs by name. Who can remember what those gibberish names are? The only reason that these ads are on TV is because Big Pharma needs to perpetuate the lie that gouging the American consumer is necessary to cover "research, development and marketing costs." Just imagine if all that money spent on advertising (which no doubt can be written off) were used to offset the cost of drugs for consumers.
10
Capitalism's answer to a nation/society overwrought by hypochondria and absent self examination....
...welcome to your "healthcare crisis."
Why is it that this age-old illusion of "American Exceptionalism" always places this country in the category of the ignorant exception, and not the rational rule? THAT's exceptionalism?
...welcome to your "healthcare crisis."
Why is it that this age-old illusion of "American Exceptionalism" always places this country in the category of the ignorant exception, and not the rational rule? THAT's exceptionalism?
3
You cannot watch 15 minutes of television without a drug ad coupled with fast food commercials. And love the line "ask your doctor" as if I actually went to medical school and not he or she. i would argue that they should be telling me not the other way around. It's like when a police officer pulls you over and asks you "do you know Why I pulled you over".? Isn't it their job to tell me? And all the side effects are worse than the disease it is supposedly helping.
I adore my doctor and pediatrician specifically because they don't over subscribe anything. My pediatrician during cold season actually encourages you not to bring the baby in because the waiting room is a germ fest and they'll actually pick up something worse. Her advice was to take her temperature, give lots of fluids and keep her cool. She's almost 10 and got sick 1 time. Thankfully, she threw up on my husband instead of me!
They have medications for a reason and doctors know which will be beneficial unless they are shady. I think the drug companies take advantage of doctor's huge amount of debt. Everyone assumes doctors are living high on the hog but it takes them years to pay off undergrad and med loans. If you are that talented to do medical or research work, we should forgive the debt once you graduate. And before anyone thinks it's a weird idea, we gave Wall Street a pass and then rewarded them. The Jamie Dimons of the world are not going to be taking care of your teenager who had a car accident.
I adore my doctor and pediatrician specifically because they don't over subscribe anything. My pediatrician during cold season actually encourages you not to bring the baby in because the waiting room is a germ fest and they'll actually pick up something worse. Her advice was to take her temperature, give lots of fluids and keep her cool. She's almost 10 and got sick 1 time. Thankfully, she threw up on my husband instead of me!
They have medications for a reason and doctors know which will be beneficial unless they are shady. I think the drug companies take advantage of doctor's huge amount of debt. Everyone assumes doctors are living high on the hog but it takes them years to pay off undergrad and med loans. If you are that talented to do medical or research work, we should forgive the debt once you graduate. And before anyone thinks it's a weird idea, we gave Wall Street a pass and then rewarded them. The Jamie Dimons of the world are not going to be taking care of your teenager who had a car accident.
3
I frequently watch the broadcast national news with my wife. We simply figure that the target audience, people like us, are largely middle-aged to older. Our demographic still reads newspapers and tunes in to the news. The younger generation is tuning out and reading less. The drug ads are about more than marketing. They are also about vast social and political change and we are not so sure it is for the good.
5
As a retired physician, I am appalled by the endless prescription drug ads that bombard us during short bursts of actual programming.
But let's look at non-RX products as well. A family member needed a sleep-aid ... and so, falling for the TV ad for ZzzzQuil, she purchased a pack ... not bothering to look at the only active ingredient: Diphenhydramine 25mg. This 'drug' is the generic form (and one-half of the RX strength) of Benadryl ... an anti-histamine used in this case for its side effect of drowsiness. The cost of the ZzzzzzzzQuil was practically twice that of the store-brand product.
But let's look at non-RX products as well. A family member needed a sleep-aid ... and so, falling for the TV ad for ZzzzQuil, she purchased a pack ... not bothering to look at the only active ingredient: Diphenhydramine 25mg. This 'drug' is the generic form (and one-half of the RX strength) of Benadryl ... an anti-histamine used in this case for its side effect of drowsiness. The cost of the ZzzzzzzzQuil was practically twice that of the store-brand product.
7
How wonderful to read what I have been thinking for years- It is ludicrous to be assaulted constantly by Big Pharma advertising. "Ask your doctor if .... is right for you" is ridiculous! I am not a medical doctor; HE or SHE prescribes medication for patients, not the other way round. The USA- of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.
5
FIRST, DO NO HARM is the beginning phrase in the Hippocratic Oath that doctors and other healthcare providers adhere to in their professional practices. What does that mean pragmatically in an era where drug companies have won in court being able to hawk their wares to the public like a bunch of old-time snake oil salesmen, under the guise of "corporate free speech." Never mind that corporations, though legally endowed with the rights of people are not, in fact citizens. They are artificial legalistic constructs. The corporations take no Hippocratic oath. In my opinion, they take the Hypocritic Oath, aided and abetted by judicial extremist political activist judges legislating from the bench.
All medications administered to all patients at all times is an empirical process. There is no universal test for the impact of drugs on each individual's biochemistry. Without a history of a severe allergic reaction to specific drugs, each patient's response may be hypothesized by the doctors, but not predicted. Empirical means, in plain English, to take an action and then watch to see what happens. So the doctor must hypothesize what medication seems likely to have the greatest benefit for individual patients. The guiding principle is somewhere between First Do No Harm and Corporate Free Speech. Standards of medical care dictate that it must be the judgement of each provider be applied in prescribing medications; for safety reasons it must not be subject to interference.
All medications administered to all patients at all times is an empirical process. There is no universal test for the impact of drugs on each individual's biochemistry. Without a history of a severe allergic reaction to specific drugs, each patient's response may be hypothesized by the doctors, but not predicted. Empirical means, in plain English, to take an action and then watch to see what happens. So the doctor must hypothesize what medication seems likely to have the greatest benefit for individual patients. The guiding principle is somewhere between First Do No Harm and Corporate Free Speech. Standards of medical care dictate that it must be the judgement of each provider be applied in prescribing medications; for safety reasons it must not be subject to interference.
3
It seems that the actors in these ads are almost always shows walking in slow motion. Guess the drugs are working.
And I don't want to ask my doctor if xxx is "right for me". I expect him to know.
And I don't want to ask my doctor if xxx is "right for me". I expect him to know.
3
Considering how prudish some Americans are, I am surprised that they tolerate drug ads, including the ones that advise: "See your doctor for an erection lasting more than four hours."
2
Lets just take the profit motive out of the medical industry entirely.
7
When these drug commercials come on, I close my eyes and listen when the side effects are described as this is when the most visually stimulating images are programmed to distract us from hearing all the bad things the drug does.
4
Most are aware that an ad for Xarelto, is often followed by an ad urging one to contact an attorney? Wonder where the benefits lies?
1
The drug ads....well ..keep in mind that the FDA ...asks the manufacturers of
these over the counter drugs...and prescription drugs to do testing on their
own products...sort of like the very canny fox guarding the hen house
...very false ethical practice....
and
that is why ....there is so much in the way of disclaimers ...about using all
these medical miracles...which could permanently damage or KILL YOU...
!!!...Please do your fact checking...NYTimes...
these over the counter drugs...and prescription drugs to do testing on their
own products...sort of like the very canny fox guarding the hen house
...very false ethical practice....
and
that is why ....there is so much in the way of disclaimers ...about using all
these medical miracles...which could permanently damage or KILL YOU...
!!!...Please do your fact checking...NYTimes...
1
I have felt for years that these drug ads are a major contributor to the anxiety people now feel about their lives. We have all become the Woody Allen character who sees every pimple and every twinge as an indication of an immediate, impending and painful demise.
5
This sounds like good advice, but inasmuch as I am in the habit of never believing the exaggerated hopes and false promises contained in Times editorials, it's hard for me to see how I can follow it.
1
There is a misconception within the majority of comments about "how prices work". It's true that current drug prices include advertising costs. However, if advertising budgets were slashed, drug prices might not change. This is because the monopolist producers will charge whatever they can for the drug,as opposed to charging what it actually costs to produce the drug. One reason why prescription drug prices are so inflated--and insurance premiums are so high-- is consumers historically bear only a small portion of the cost and the insurance company pays the rest. So the normal "cost-benefit analysis" doesn't apply; and high prices don't lead to lower demand (especially if the drug companies can convince consumers to ask doctors to prescribe these drugs!).
The solution? 1) a single payer system, so the government can negotiate lower drug prices, or 2) incentives for both doctors and patients to lower prescription drug costs. We are already seeing attempts to achieve #2. And while we are at it, can we return to "commercial-free news broadcasts", like we used to have in this country? Like other readers, I stopped watching the news due to both the ridiculous ads and the increasingly commercial nature of the news broadcast itself.
The solution? 1) a single payer system, so the government can negotiate lower drug prices, or 2) incentives for both doctors and patients to lower prescription drug costs. We are already seeing attempts to achieve #2. And while we are at it, can we return to "commercial-free news broadcasts", like we used to have in this country? Like other readers, I stopped watching the news due to both the ridiculous ads and the increasingly commercial nature of the news broadcast itself.
5
What is particularly bothersome about prescription drug ads is viewers having to suffer through a long litany of side effect descriptions (and in many cases all that means is that 5% of a test group reported the side effect compared to 2% of a placebo group). I assume that the discussion of side effects is a regulatory requirement in drug ads, but I don't want to hear about diarrhea or constipation or vomiting or night sweats while watching TV at dinnertime.
Perhaps ads could be shortened (thereby reducing the marketing costs that are baked into drug prices) if pharmaceutical companies were allowed to simply say, "there are some possible side effects of this drug. Go to www.ourgreatnewdrug.com to read more, or ask your doctor" Similarly, is it really necessary for print ads targeted at consumers to include 1 or 2 pages of small print gibberish that nobody, and I mean nobody ever in history, actually reads? Again, omit that requirement and ad costs, which are passed onto patients, would decrease.
Perhaps ads could be shortened (thereby reducing the marketing costs that are baked into drug prices) if pharmaceutical companies were allowed to simply say, "there are some possible side effects of this drug. Go to www.ourgreatnewdrug.com to read more, or ask your doctor" Similarly, is it really necessary for print ads targeted at consumers to include 1 or 2 pages of small print gibberish that nobody, and I mean nobody ever in history, actually reads? Again, omit that requirement and ad costs, which are passed onto patients, would decrease.
1
Pharmaceutical advertisers are not required to enumerate all known side effects in their ads—doing so would take too long. Instead, advertisers cherry pick the side effects: thus the prominent mention in all ED ads to consult your doctor in the event of an erection lasting 4 hours.
it's not cherry picking. The FDA requires the most common effects that are different from placebo to be listed, and in the case of erections lasting more than four hours, the most dangerous ones, even if rare.
I am always amazed that people would even consider most of these drugs after hearing the possible side effects.....I just tune them out when I hear them.
1
They can't sell the drug if they don't sell the disease first. How many people develop illnesses and symptoms because they saw them (repeatedly) on television? It's called brainwashing.
The fellow below who discovered a sleep aid on television might want to change doctors; his doctor went to medical school and charges well for his services. It's not a patient's job to educate his physician.
The fellow below who discovered a sleep aid on television might want to change doctors; his doctor went to medical school and charges well for his services. It's not a patient's job to educate his physician.
The ads are as slick as Teflon and just as tasteless.
2
I hope I'm not repeating what others may have posted here, but one of the largest costs for pharma companies is the marketing/advertising budgets for pushing these drugs. They're intrusive, but they get people to ask their doctors about them -- and most of the time, doctors aren't familiar with them at all. Thankfully, in our home, we tend to record shows we like and we can fast forward through the ads. I often wonder why the heck does Pfizer advertise Viagra during sports events? Oh, wait. Men watch them, and most are insecure about things like E.D. Same thing for the evening news on all the networks -- the ad space is filled to overflowing with drugs being pitched to old people. It's insane and it adds nothing to the practical world of medical care.
2
These ads should be illegal. A drug requires a prescription because the FDA believes that the decision to use it requires some technical knowledge. My patients seem to agree. When I see an ad for a new and expensive prescription drug, a drug that I have carefully reviewed and decided not to use, the add burns me up, even though I liberally use the mute button on my remote control. I do agree however with another reader's comment that patients rarely ask for these drugs based on such ads.
6
If tobacco ads can be banned from television, why can't pharmaceutical ads?
The "commercial free speech" argument doesn't appear to apply to tobacco companies. It shouldn't apply to prescription drugs either.
The "commercial free speech" argument doesn't appear to apply to tobacco companies. It shouldn't apply to prescription drugs either.
6
Ban the commercial prescription drug ads as they once were. The US is only 1 of 2 countries that allows direct to consumer drug ads. New Zealand is the other country.
We pay for these pricy ads as part of our drug costs. Some drug companies include advertising costs in with research costs, and advertising costs may be higher than actual research costs.
Ask why so many other countries ban direct to consumer drug advertising.
We pay for these pricy ads as part of our drug costs. Some drug companies include advertising costs in with research costs, and advertising costs may be higher than actual research costs.
Ask why so many other countries ban direct to consumer drug advertising.
5
We live in the age of self-diagnosis. There are a myriad number of web- sites that a consumer can use to correctly or most importantly incorrectly link symptoms to a disease. Pharmaceutical companies have simply taken the model of "create a demand from the patient". After all, we are moving to the notion that patients are customers that we want to keep happy, so that under the ACA, our Doctors recieve high ratings. At Medical conferences, receceptions are used for socializing and for product / manufacturer networking. Many Doctors are so tightly scheduled at their "practice" that they have liitle time to meet with Pharmaceutical reps . So, the companies have decided to use the "lobbying" of patients through television. Banning ads for prescription drugs may not be the answer but free speech of those that manufacture drugs should be a non starter. Otherwise , there is no need for Federal and State oversight of any endeavor and the charlatans that sell any remedy should be left alone. Those that have had bad experiences with medications can find social networks , where many of the side effects are discussed in "real time". One needs only to research Botox, and look at the discussion groups / shared experiences. When I visit my Doctor, I have never come in with an attitude of , "can we try this medication". We must not assume that television ads ceate knowledgeable consumers.
3
While at it, not only drug ads should be banned across this land of commercializing every little pimple or other condition one could have during a lifetime but the ones of law firms asking to join class action suits against company A, B or C as well, should one have been 'injured' by a medical device.
Not only are ads of pharmaceutical companies banned in almost all nations of the world, the ones by lawyers are as well.
Only in America are the airwaves saturated with ad infinitum ads of both wonder pills for every ailment known to mankind, while at the same time trying to tell consumers to hire themselves a law firm and sue the heck out of every company whose product might have harmed them at some point in time.
Not only are ads of pharmaceutical companies banned in almost all nations of the world, the ones by lawyers are as well.
Only in America are the airwaves saturated with ad infinitum ads of both wonder pills for every ailment known to mankind, while at the same time trying to tell consumers to hire themselves a law firm and sue the heck out of every company whose product might have harmed them at some point in time.
5
When I was suing big pharma for misrepresentation in the 1990's, the cost of advertising was included in the Research & Development costs used to justify the high price of patented drugs. Because a large percentage of drug costs are paid through various government programs, allowing this accounting procedure results in corporate welfare. Stop the subsidy and I suspect the TV advertising will decrease significantly.
3
Some suggest their reason for watching TV is to inform themselves about new drugs. If thirst for this kind of information is indeed high, then perhaps a specific cable channel can be dedicated to infomercials about new meds. I for one wouldn't miss the lugubrious warnings about liver failure, coma and death as possible side effects. Not to mention thoughts of suicide.
4
They have become a joke in our house. The game -- consider the smooth lyrical marketing name and try to guess what the drug is for. Then either grab the tivo remote or wait with bemused anticipation for the appalling amount of side effects and "even death". Who would go to their doctor about this??
6
My 11 year-old granddaughter is a baseball fan. I'm lucky in that this is a way in which we can bond. She'll call me up and say, "C.C. is pitching tonight - why don't you come over and we'll watch?". Of course, I'll go over. The problem is that between innings, we are exposed to the Viagra commercials. Do I have to sit with my granddaughter and be told that 40% of men over 40 have difficulty achieving and maintaining an erection?? Personally, I thin it's sick and a form of corruption. Money, money, money. Family values?? ZERO!!!!!! Someone stop this, please.
6
The suggestion that our Congress should regulate Drug Companies TV advertising is fantasy at best. Politicians will never bite the hand that feeds them. The mute button works best and I do not have to " compromise" to get it accomplished.
3
Morally speaking this a form of corruption.
1
How fitting that America's most pernicious drug -- TV -- is financed in large part by drug companies. It's not an easy addiction to kick, but the best thing to do is simply not to watch it, which has the added advantage of shielding you from endless political attack ads and mudslinging. This alone ought to help keep your blood pressure down and your spirits up.
4
Bravo. TV the drug should carry a "brain mortality" warning saying it should be used only when a valuable program that informs and enlightens appears. That would be very rare viewing. TV is the dumbing-down of American society.
1
I believe drug companies cherry pick their own testing to focus on pluses of their drugs and play down their liabilities. But it's off-label applications that worry me the most.
1
How many people know that drug companies write off their "advertising and promotion" costs from their taxes as a cost of doing business? They also get to write off insurance costs and the cost of lawsuits if their drugs kill or maim someone. Ludicrous. Their business should be saving lives, not making profit. Get Wall Street OUT of OUR medical complex.
8
Having worked for agencies that provided sales materials for big pharma, I well remember the late 90s when the FDA decided to allow TV ads, with their ominous list of 'side effects" as a tradeoff between claims and reality. At the time, I swallowed whole pharma's rationale for "educating" consumers.
A few years after this genie was let out of the bottle, the backlash from doctors was big news--in an era of managed care and 5-minute appointments they resented patients wasting their time with demands for drugs inappropriate for their conditions.
Now, with everything from toenail fungus to lung cancer, we're bombarded with ads that promise the moon in the hopes TV viewers will leave the room when the side effects come on. Today I hate the ads, as an intrusion as well as disgusting simplifications of the power of drugs to cure all.
The problem with TV drug ads is that "ask you doctor" has become "tell your doctor." Frankly, I think the FDA should remove them: they're a costly reminder of what's driving drug prices skyward, despite pharma's self defense that it needs higher prices for "research."
Research-- my foot. Oh wait, there's a cure for that. If anyone out there loves drug ads, let me ask them this: would you rather have higher prices or more "education" about new products?
A few years after this genie was let out of the bottle, the backlash from doctors was big news--in an era of managed care and 5-minute appointments they resented patients wasting their time with demands for drugs inappropriate for their conditions.
Now, with everything from toenail fungus to lung cancer, we're bombarded with ads that promise the moon in the hopes TV viewers will leave the room when the side effects come on. Today I hate the ads, as an intrusion as well as disgusting simplifications of the power of drugs to cure all.
The problem with TV drug ads is that "ask you doctor" has become "tell your doctor." Frankly, I think the FDA should remove them: they're a costly reminder of what's driving drug prices skyward, despite pharma's self defense that it needs higher prices for "research."
Research-- my foot. Oh wait, there's a cure for that. If anyone out there loves drug ads, let me ask them this: would you rather have higher prices or more "education" about new products?
14
I agree whole heartily with you, you make good points, but when I do not watch Netflix but cable, I do not see the ads. None of them. Maybe some doctor should investigate me and my neurological system, because I never see ads. Oh wait, I remember the Abilify ad because there is a wonderful movie (on Netflix) called "Side effects" which takes this product and others and wraps it in a suspenseful movie. Look at it and then look at RAPT, which addresses the 1%.
1
TV is big money for pharmaceutical companies which are the one of the richest industries. The companies advertise and consumers ask for the drug/s seen on the TV ad and that drives demand. Some physicians are not aware of some of the new medicine that is requested. Interesting.
2
While marketing drugs directly to patients is clearly a bad idea, the question is an ethical one rather than legal. It is unlikely that a legislative effort to ban the practice would pass a court challenge. Years ago this would not have occurred. Those days are gone.
3
They were outlawed before August 1997, so there's precedent to outlaw them again.
2
If a creature from outer space watched our TV, it would conclude that we are the sickest beings in the universe. In the half-hour that contains our evening news viewing, we must see at least eight ads for drugs to treat a variety of ailments, some of which we've never heard of. New drug names pop up all the time, too. This is one reason we turn to BBC for most of our news. Another is that we honestly don't believe that if we take the drugs for reduced libido or sexual function, we'll end up holding hands in side-by-side bathtubs.
5
No worries. We don't pay attention to them anyway.
1
Everyone is not so smart.
1
The Times should do more than take a position on the growing problem of slick drug ads. After years of abuse, drug "detailing" in doctors offices was been dialed down with good reason: these individuals influenced prescribing practices. Do drug ads influence consumer health in positive or negative ways? Would a person with type 2 diabetes be more likely to eat poorly after seeing a flashy ad for an glucose lowering medication? What is the effect of advertising anti depression medication on individuals with depression, for example? Helpful or harmful? Or neither? Certainly there is a paucity of information about drug advertising, their slick ad campaigns and health seeking behaviors. It is well known that cigarette ads have affected health, misleading the public for years. Medication prescribing? It should be a discussion between the health provider and the patient, not the TV screen, drug company, and ad agency.
4
I hope to heck they can come up with some kind of banning if not outright removal of the commercials. It seems like every third commercial is for a drug. Having been disabled for several years from brain surgery, these things drive me bananas. I don't see any rational reason for them. Some are no longer necessary. I mean absolutely no disrespect in any way, shape or form, but I'm fairly certain that most men are aware by now of all drugs available to address ED. Is there truly a need for the never-ending commercials for these drugs? There are other meds with non-stop repeats also. It's tiresome and my mute button is overworked. The ads are there for profit, not assistance. I don't know anyone with medical problems that see these commercials helpful in any kind of way. Annoying is the word that pops up the most. I've talked about this in offices, hospital rooms and with other friends and family members with medical problems. They see no benefit to these. I know, because of free speech, they're not allowed to stop them. But surely there has to be someway, shape or form to limit them.
4
Until I read this column I thought that the FDA did review ads. The networks do, but they don't have the expertise nor the incentive to scrutinize. No wonder a claim that a cancer drug lets you "significantly" extend life - from 6 months to 9 months - is permitted. Many of the drugs are last resort types of conditions. But they don't tell you that. We know we can't trust big Pharma. Billions of dollars of penalties for illegal off-label promotion is evidence.
5
the article is misleading. The FDA does review ads, and cites companies for false or misleading statements. Companies are not required to submit ads prior to running them, but that is a risk many choose not to take, as the false and misleading ads must be replaced with corrective ads of similar prominence and placement.
Thanks Cloud Nine. Just a note that not all the conditions are life-threatening. Not to mention the name of the drug, but one more recent ad is for a toe fungus curative. I have a friend whose Medicare does not cover the cost. Actual price: $500.00 for a less than one ounce container. This is toe fungus people...annoying, not pretty...but not life threatening although the drug has risks.
1
Drugs are not consumer products and should not be allowed to be marketed to consumers. The right treatment for an ailment should be made in consultation with your physician and should first involve discussions about other options beside pills - like changes in diet, exercise, physical therapy, etc. Pills should not automatically be the first choice in treatments but should only be considered when other options have been exhausted. These ads should be banned for all products that can not be legally sold over the counter.
3
The article comments that any restriction of these ads might be challenged in the courts due to freedom of speech limitations. But what about what is appropriate to be presented on television. I'd like to be able to watch a football game with my kids without being advised of the dangers of four hour erections.
If ads like these need to be on TV, at least restrict them to a time when kids are not going to be watching.
If ads like these need to be on TV, at least restrict them to a time when kids are not going to be watching.
2
Four out of five football players prefer four hour...
By the time they finish listing all the potential side effects (for example, while taking one of the drugs that helps you welcome "sleep" - you may also drive without rememhering it, or sleep walking, or experience depression, or suicidal thoughts), they've about convinced me the side effects outweigh the possible benefits. I'm likely to argue with my doctor against taking it. I'm on more meds than I like now, but will take the ones absolutely necessary - like for high blood pressure.
I expect that I'm going to have some aches and pains and other things - it's called living and the price of getting older. And while some of the meds can undoubtedly take away all of the problems, you may barely be able to function or live a normal life on them. Why do you think so many people stop taking them even though they know the possible consequences.
I expect that I'm going to have some aches and pains and other things - it's called living and the price of getting older. And while some of the meds can undoubtedly take away all of the problems, you may barely be able to function or live a normal life on them. Why do you think so many people stop taking them even though they know the possible consequences.
3
They are an outrage, but after all corporations rule our country. There is no turning back.
4
It is easy to say corporations rule our country, but unfortunately, people rule our country, and among them stupidity and corruption seems quite prevalent. Businesses, generally within the bounds of the law, try to make money. If they didn't, they would be sued even more by their shareholders for failing to "maximize shareholder value". If politicians and regulators only act in crises and allow questionable business practices, I am not sure the corporations are the ones to blame.
1
1) Evidence-based info. from McMaster, the center of evidence-based medicine in North America for humans: http://www.mcmasteroptimalaging.org/
2) Would prefer using the word citizens rather than consumers, especially in this context, but throughout the Times. You lose me when ever consumers is used.
2) Would prefer using the word citizens rather than consumers, especially in this context, but throughout the Times. You lose me when ever consumers is used.
What percentage of my health care premium pays for these ads that increase the cost of the medicine that I will never use? We all pay one way or another - with lost time, annoyance, and real money.
6
As I thought about it, Ferencz, I realized that the cost of prescribed meds may indeed increase your health care insurance premium, because your insurance pays at least part of the cost of the drugs ... and, of course, there's the co-pay.
1
I actually saw an advertisement on television the other day for treating the side effects of having taken another drug, which was used to treat the actual illness, and even it had a long list of side effects if taken.
Some of the drugs used in television advertisements are for non-fatal illnesses, but if one listens closely enough to the steady, long stream of harmful side effects that accompanies the drug, the word death is usually the last side effect mentioned.
There's a pill for everything these days...can't urinate? take this pill...suffer from incontinence? take this pill...inability to perform sexually? take this pill. More times than not, what we are suffering from is nothing more than old age.
For most of us, the best "pill" to swallow is life. It might not be perfect, but the side effects are less daunting.
Some of the drugs used in television advertisements are for non-fatal illnesses, but if one listens closely enough to the steady, long stream of harmful side effects that accompanies the drug, the word death is usually the last side effect mentioned.
There's a pill for everything these days...can't urinate? take this pill...suffer from incontinence? take this pill...inability to perform sexually? take this pill. More times than not, what we are suffering from is nothing more than old age.
For most of us, the best "pill" to swallow is life. It might not be perfect, but the side effects are less daunting.
7
If people listened carefully to the sotto voce warnings in the drug ads -- "may cause internal bleeding, suicidal ideation, blindness, bone loss, muscle tremors . . . " -- they would be more than sceptical of these expensive drug "miracles." Let's at least make the warnings stark and easy to understand, without the overlay of romantic couples and bouncing children frolicking in sunny meadows and along breezy seashores.
64
If you have to "ask your Doctor" or "tell your Doctor" anything other than symptoms you need another Doctor. Those hilarious side effects being read off while the couple are gazing into the sunset amorously are the only interesting parts of those ads. Trouble is, they must be effective or they wouldn't be there.
1
I resent these ads every time I see one. With drug costs going up every day, this is how our money is being spent by the drug companies. This is an example of capitalism run amuck.
10
In the pre-internet era, drug advertising on TV had a legitimate informational function. Since the internet, that is no longer true.
Unfortunately, anyone who researches a common drug on the internet is likely to conclude that USA websites report inflated claims of safety, and minimize the incidence of adverse events. The European websites often seem to tell a different story.
To the extent that TV advertising may misinform, and may discourage consumer research, it no longer has a valid social mission.
American TV advertising of drugs is no longer necessary for consumer awareness. It also
Unfortunately, anyone who researches a common drug on the internet is likely to conclude that USA websites report inflated claims of safety, and minimize the incidence of adverse events. The European websites often seem to tell a different story.
To the extent that TV advertising may misinform, and may discourage consumer research, it no longer has a valid social mission.
American TV advertising of drugs is no longer necessary for consumer awareness. It also
2
These ads tell you that you now have an ailment that you never knew you had, such as a monthly period.
5
Given pharmas' "difficulty" with rising rates of placebo responses in drug trials leaving their anticipated "blockbusters" failing to show a significant improvement and therefore FDA approval, it may be that pharmas withdraw DCT adverts as they are suspected as being the leading cause of the increased placebo responses. Delicious irony for once.
3
Although the side effect of death may not be the ideal outcome from a prescription medication, you have to admit it would eliminate the underlying condition completely.
5
There shouldn't be any drug ads. Period. If your doctor doesn't know more than you do about the treatment for your illness, get a new doctor.
15
I cannot ignore the fact we are one of the only two nations that allow such ads, but also built into our law drug pricing cannot be negotiated for our single largest purchaser, Medicare and Medicaid. Add to that most other countries pay a lower price for drugs than we do and have one payer access that pays for medical healthcare directly without going through the middleman of an insurer, to get the medications they need. They don't need advertisements.
This all points out the absurdity of our insurance driven access system of a fee based healthcare delivery system that is all about selling health services rather than health.
Ban the ads. If the rational argument doesn't convince, then how about no longer finding yourself eating when bombarded by a long list of downright unappetizing, revolting side effects you'd get your ears boxed for mentioning at the dinner table or in all but the most rude social situations.
For that alone, ban the ads.
This all points out the absurdity of our insurance driven access system of a fee based healthcare delivery system that is all about selling health services rather than health.
Ban the ads. If the rational argument doesn't convince, then how about no longer finding yourself eating when bombarded by a long list of downright unappetizing, revolting side effects you'd get your ears boxed for mentioning at the dinner table or in all but the most rude social situations.
For that alone, ban the ads.
133
Absolutely agree concerning the disgusting issue of no negotiating drug prices, Blue. I needed a back up to a prescription while in Spain and it was 1/4 the cost of here at home. And the tv ads are too frequent and laughable.
1
Best idea in a long time....
5
I find the constant barrage embarrassing. I encourage my children to watch the morning and evening news and we are barraged with these ads. Then they want an explanation, then they ask about the increased risk of stroke, hair loss, etc. I AM SICK OF THEM. I now always turn to another channel.
3
Constant greed gardeners. Drug companies are as evil as banks and most politicians. Profit above lives, is this not the American way today. The world has become a joke and moved far from reality.
6
Simple solution, maybe?
Forbid drug companies from passing the cost of consumer advertising on to the consumer. They want to advertise directly to people who would be prescribed the drug, they have to take that cost out of their profits.
Forbid drug companies from passing the cost of consumer advertising on to the consumer. They want to advertise directly to people who would be prescribed the drug, they have to take that cost out of their profits.
83
What is truly the most fascinating aspect of these ubiquitous commercials is the long list of possible side effects. The risks often outweigh the benefits. Do I live with my Psoriasis or risk Lymphoma from the medication? Hmmm, I'll live the Psoriasis, thank you.
15
It amazes me that people might be willing to accept really horrific side effects to get rid of something that's really only cosmetic. I have no idea why it would be a problem to simply prohibit pharmaceutical advertising to the public. It certainly doesn't seem to be in the public's interest, only the "interests" of the drug companies, their advertising companies, and their politicians.
1
These ads are outright bribes to the media to ignore the rampant venality and corruption in the US health care finance system.
10
One of the really offensive things about these ads is should you or someone close to you have diabetes or cancer of irritable bowl syndrome, etc. and you have escaped into a baseball game or episode of "Housewives of Bayonne" you get smacked back into your fear about the particular malady as soon as the commercial comes on. Why not just have a warning that says "Don't have too much fun, you will die someday." flash subliminally every five seconds to keep viewers anxious?
8
Canada bans direct advertising of prescription drugs and Canadian TV stations go elsewhere for revenue. However, since we also receive US broadcasts via cable and satellite with their overload of prescription ads, we have all the negative effects. If you manage to get the FDA to control them, it will also help us. Please.
7
Don't hold your breath.
The drug ads are disgusting. I am so offended by them, I cannot help but put in my own comment, which echoes others already written. I have turned off the TV to save my mental health.
They need to be banned. Big pharma is out of control as are many other corporations these days. I get a sense there are "mad scientists" cooking up a new batch a day. No one in their right mind would want to give most, if any a try, the side effects are so dire. And the names - the creative forces are working overtime to come up with yet another tricky name to spring on the public. A pox on them all!
They need to be banned. Big pharma is out of control as are many other corporations these days. I get a sense there are "mad scientists" cooking up a new batch a day. No one in their right mind would want to give most, if any a try, the side effects are so dire. And the names - the creative forces are working overtime to come up with yet another tricky name to spring on the public. A pox on them all!
14
Forget turning down the volume. Refuse to use any that aren't absolutely necessary and do not fill "preventative" prescriptions unless the doctor can guarantee that the drug will improve your condition and not do more harm. Most prescription drugs today are like snake oil. The time has come to stop giving patents for prescription drugs and pull those already in effect. WE are paying for the research and development of the drugs through University and NIH research yet a few uber-greedsters are raising the prices to astronomical levels getting wealthier on OUR lives. All prescription drugs should be owned, produced and distributed by OUR government through a Universal Health Care Program and must be seriously regulated and cost-controlled.
2
On one hand big pharma charges whatever it wants for new drugs with questionable efficacy, and on the other hand they advertise many of these same drugs 24/7/365 on all major media outlets in prime time touting the potential of the same drugs. Why not divert these advertising monies to the research, and lower the costs of the same drugs to the public. I have never asked a doctor about a drug I have seen advertised on TV, and probably never will. I have the same reaction to these ads as I do to furniture sale ads.
4
Such direct advertising relegates complex medications down to the level of selling shoes or cheese. If you listen to these ads the adverse effects are whizzed through while you are watching pleasurable images - basic psychology tells you that people will not remember what is being said when distracted by such images.
Big Pharma leads consumers around by the nose then lies about the need for these ads. Especially nasty is the creation of bogus ailments in the minds of the public - male testosterone or feminine hygiene are glaring examples - which waste valuable clinic time and create unwarranted tensions between physicians who do not cater to these false ailments and patients who have been brainwashed.
Big Pharma leads consumers around by the nose then lies about the need for these ads. Especially nasty is the creation of bogus ailments in the minds of the public - male testosterone or feminine hygiene are glaring examples - which waste valuable clinic time and create unwarranted tensions between physicians who do not cater to these false ailments and patients who have been brainwashed.
3
What a marvelous confluence of benefits! By running ads to inform and empower consumers, drug companies can also (they hope) increase revenue. It's a win-win situation.
But seriously, this piece cites no actual evidence of harm caused by the ads. Sure, the ads probably provide next to zero benefit to consumers. Sure, they're potentially misleading. (But physicians still control access to the drugs.) Yes, many of them are tasteless. (They're television commercials. What do you want?) That said, I don't see any compelling reason for restricting them, as long as they're essentially truthful.
But seriously, this piece cites no actual evidence of harm caused by the ads. Sure, the ads probably provide next to zero benefit to consumers. Sure, they're potentially misleading. (But physicians still control access to the drugs.) Yes, many of them are tasteless. (They're television commercials. What do you want?) That said, I don't see any compelling reason for restricting them, as long as they're essentially truthful.
2
I think they should be banned entirely. I know that sounds harsh, but I think people are on way too many prescription drugs.
3
Just another example of the Corporate Canceriziation of medicine--advertising to consumers for bigger PROFITS. Big Pharma spends a considerable amount of money on advertising, including TV ads, medical journal ads, consumer magazine and newspaper ads, billboards, as well as sponsoring conferences and lunches for physicians and others in healthcare and providing branded "souvenirs" like note pads, calendars stressballs, etc. It's repugnant and transparent to those of us in the know. There are no magic pills for everything that ails you but there sure is money to be spent, which sucks it out of the system and puts it right into the pockets of CEO's and their investors. And don't get me started about the aftermath, with the bottom dwelling lawyers and THEIR deep pockets, advertising for medical malpractice-perosnal injury lawsuits, once again for $$$.
4
This editorial fails in 2 areas. First it fails to mention the other parts of drug company marketing besides the ads. Second it fails to consider the cost of all this marketing on drug prices.
Prof Alan Sager of BU has studied drug companies. He has found that they spend about 11% of their budget on R & D, 19% on profit (about twice the average of all industries) and 34% on "Marketing". This includes not only the odious TV and magazine ads, but the thousands of unqualified "pushers" who visit physicians' offices to get them to use various drugs and the many payments to doctors such as fake educational conferences at fancy resorts and stipends to give talks to other doctors based on faulty information supplied by the drug company. The purpose of all this "marketing" is to get us to use drugs we do not need or to use expensive new drugs even when cheaper older drugs are as effective or even more effective. It is clear that we could cut drug prices by at least a third and not impact research at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
Prof Alan Sager of BU has studied drug companies. He has found that they spend about 11% of their budget on R & D, 19% on profit (about twice the average of all industries) and 34% on "Marketing". This includes not only the odious TV and magazine ads, but the thousands of unqualified "pushers" who visit physicians' offices to get them to use various drugs and the many payments to doctors such as fake educational conferences at fancy resorts and stipends to give talks to other doctors based on faulty information supplied by the drug company. The purpose of all this "marketing" is to get us to use drugs we do not need or to use expensive new drugs even when cheaper older drugs are as effective or even more effective. It is clear that we could cut drug prices by at least a third and not impact research at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
7
Consider that drug companies spend millions of dollars for these ads on radio, TV and print. All these costs are pass through to the consumer in higher drug prices; the quickest rising component of heath care costs. Only in the US are drug companies allowed to advertise. In most western countries, the government regulates the cost of drugs; except in the US. A give back by the Obama administration with the so called "Affordable Care Act". He kept this practice from from previous administration.
The ads, themselves, are annoying. Some ads, have no business running before 9 PM. They run at all hours of the day or night. Children are exposed to ads they should not, A recent Viagra, by now Ireland based Pfizer, could actually make woman vulnerable; it encourages intimate activity.
I was at a conference last year and talking with a gentlemen from Australia. He commented on the large number of drug ads which run here. Such ads are illegal there, and the cost of drugs are much lower.
The AMA, pushing for a ban on these ads, is a good start. But, AMA members have benefited fro years by getting "incentives" from drug companies and originally help pushed for these ads. Now, patients are telling doctors they want a drug, because they saw it on TV. The chickens have come home to roost.
Drug companies will cry "free speech", but this is costing consumers, and the government, billions of dollars each year. It is high time these ads cease.
The ads, themselves, are annoying. Some ads, have no business running before 9 PM. They run at all hours of the day or night. Children are exposed to ads they should not, A recent Viagra, by now Ireland based Pfizer, could actually make woman vulnerable; it encourages intimate activity.
I was at a conference last year and talking with a gentlemen from Australia. He commented on the large number of drug ads which run here. Such ads are illegal there, and the cost of drugs are much lower.
The AMA, pushing for a ban on these ads, is a good start. But, AMA members have benefited fro years by getting "incentives" from drug companies and originally help pushed for these ads. Now, patients are telling doctors they want a drug, because they saw it on TV. The chickens have come home to roost.
Drug companies will cry "free speech", but this is costing consumers, and the government, billions of dollars each year. It is high time these ads cease.
15
I will always remember what one of my employees told me years ago while we worked together at a bank. His father was a very senior executive at a large European pharma company. And it being cold a flu season, we were talking about over the counter decongestants and other such remedies. He said don't touch them - his fathers' phrase was "they are good to sell, not good to take."
In the pharma explosion that has occurred in the years since, I can't help thinking about that phrase. I'm pretty sure it applies to the vast number of prescription pills and potions marketed to us on TV. One easy way to check is to look at soaring pharma companies' stock prices, and their CEO pay.
Good to sell, indeed.
In the pharma explosion that has occurred in the years since, I can't help thinking about that phrase. I'm pretty sure it applies to the vast number of prescription pills and potions marketed to us on TV. One easy way to check is to look at soaring pharma companies' stock prices, and their CEO pay.
Good to sell, indeed.
80
Without more information as to which company and what it marketed, I can't judge your anecdote. You cay it was 'years ago' and moreover that it involved 'his father'. Which suggests decades. Quite possibly, to borrow a line from Bernard Shaw, there's been a lot found out about potatoes since that old man learnt to dig them, and the ingredients in the OTC decongestants may be different from those to which Polonius was referring.
Your blanket dismissal is just as wrong-headed as the blanket acceptance of the person who believes every ad on TV and wants a pill for everything. I would suggest the latter attitude is what's really responsible for those soaring stock prices.
Your blanket dismissal is just as wrong-headed as the blanket acceptance of the person who believes every ad on TV and wants a pill for everything. I would suggest the latter attitude is what's really responsible for those soaring stock prices.
1
While the majority of OTC drugs cannot “cure” a cold....Taking simple decongestants--pseudoephedrine 30 mg 3x/day, or meds that thin secretions such as guaifenesin do help. Acetaminophen 650 mg or ibuprofen 200 mg 3x/day help with muscle aches and headaches.
I never prescribe Nyquil- (alcohol) or drugs with five different ingredients. The problem is that people CAN’T take off work to do the real things that “cure” colds....that’s sleep, increasing fluids, and “tincture of time” to allow the obdy to heal itself. People with colds should NOT be at work BUT most of us don’t have sick days...in a good world with safety nets, we could actually take sick days 1) to get better and 2) stop the spread of one of the most easily acquired infections--rhinoviruses-- that cause colds.
I’ll listen to my colleagues and to peer medical journal articles on the best way to treat America’s number two infectious disease. Number one? Head lice...which also needs an OTC drug to eradicate.
I admit I was flummoxed by a “very senior” (as opposed to “senior?") pharmaceutical exec saying that his drugs were only good for his bottomline NOT for patients? That is such an amoral, unethical way of doing business! If he thinks his meds are nothing but snake oil, why does he keep selling them??
I never prescribe Nyquil- (alcohol) or drugs with five different ingredients. The problem is that people CAN’T take off work to do the real things that “cure” colds....that’s sleep, increasing fluids, and “tincture of time” to allow the obdy to heal itself. People with colds should NOT be at work BUT most of us don’t have sick days...in a good world with safety nets, we could actually take sick days 1) to get better and 2) stop the spread of one of the most easily acquired infections--rhinoviruses-- that cause colds.
I’ll listen to my colleagues and to peer medical journal articles on the best way to treat America’s number two infectious disease. Number one? Head lice...which also needs an OTC drug to eradicate.
I admit I was flummoxed by a “very senior” (as opposed to “senior?") pharmaceutical exec saying that his drugs were only good for his bottomline NOT for patients? That is such an amoral, unethical way of doing business! If he thinks his meds are nothing but snake oil, why does he keep selling them??
2
ACW - There's really nothing more to parse in that anecdote. The point is an industry based on an underlying culture of greed. My anecdote also notes that I was working for a bank at the time - Deutsche Bank. I spent many years in banking - another industry rooted in a culture of greed, but presenting itself in a benevolent veneer. Growing economies. Creating jobs, etc.... And we are still reeling in the aftermath of their uncontrolled foray into derivatives based on bad housing bets.
We know from that outcome where greed leads us. Yes, that executive was very senior - the president of a division - which is why that statement is so repellent. My strong belief is that mindset still pervades the industry. Just look at the Pfizer- Allergan tax-inversion-driven merger announcement.
You can't let these people control the airwaves when they want unrestricted sales of their products. Oxycontin for kids, in the middle of a prescription drug epidemic. Talk about locking in the next generation of buyer. Thankfully, they don't yet have a mascot like Joe Camel.
We know from that outcome where greed leads us. Yes, that executive was very senior - the president of a division - which is why that statement is so repellent. My strong belief is that mindset still pervades the industry. Just look at the Pfizer- Allergan tax-inversion-driven merger announcement.
You can't let these people control the airwaves when they want unrestricted sales of their products. Oxycontin for kids, in the middle of a prescription drug epidemic. Talk about locking in the next generation of buyer. Thankfully, they don't yet have a mascot like Joe Camel.
2
The only benefit I have gained from the drug ads on TV is the alacrity with which I reach for the mute button. I sometimes seriously consider whether or not certain drug companies make up fictitious diseases in order to sell the phony drugs they advertise to treat phony diseases. There are no words to describe the contempt I feel for America's pharaceutical industry, and, for that matter the common habit in the US to treat its citizen's health needs as a business aimed at earning profit rather than a service.
After the banning of drug ads why not go further and ban ads by lawyers?
After the banning of drug ads why not go further and ban ads by lawyers?
171
Christino, I am a retired lawyer, and I don't know any other lawyer of my generation who doesn't agree with you. The courts have struck down bans on lawyer ads, unfortunately. They make me cringe.
Why not ban for profit health care altogether? It does us no good. We are a nation of germ phobes. Big pharma has, indeed, convinced us that ordinary sniffles and other quotidien discomforts are signs of serious illness from which only another pill can save us. Every part of our body is fair game.
What is the end result of this "health education" that our physicians cannot trust to treat or discuss with us? We spend twice as much money for half as much benefit.
I wish I lived in a sane society where common sense dictated that corporations are just businesses, not people, and have no Constitutional rights. Further, I wish that their apparently god-given right to make a profit is not held as the primary value over human well-being.
Consider, our medical practitioners have gone through four years of training followed by an intense internship but a pharmaceutical company can diagnose our ailments in a 30 second commercial. Really, how foolish is that?
If I am sick at all, I am sick of corporations sticking their invidious grubby little fingers in to every aspect of life. It cheapens life itself and demeans the dignity of humanity.
What is the end result of this "health education" that our physicians cannot trust to treat or discuss with us? We spend twice as much money for half as much benefit.
I wish I lived in a sane society where common sense dictated that corporations are just businesses, not people, and have no Constitutional rights. Further, I wish that their apparently god-given right to make a profit is not held as the primary value over human well-being.
Consider, our medical practitioners have gone through four years of training followed by an intense internship but a pharmaceutical company can diagnose our ailments in a 30 second commercial. Really, how foolish is that?
If I am sick at all, I am sick of corporations sticking their invidious grubby little fingers in to every aspect of life. It cheapens life itself and demeans the dignity of humanity.
Why not ban ads for everything that you don't personally find worthwhile? And I suppose Cristino, that you'd be glad to decide what's best for the rest of us as well?
I recently visited my doctor and requested a sleep aid that I had seen in an advertisement. He had never heard of it, and pulled out a dog eared, four year old physicians guide, which not surprisingly, didn't have any mention of the more recent therapy. He then said that he's look into it.
On my next visit, he hadn't followed up, so I asked him again. He then reviewed the drug on his computer, and agreed, that it might make sense for the condition I described.
The drug works quite well, both my doctor and I are satisfied with the result.
How would I have ever acquired this beneficial therapy if these ads were banned? Shouldn't consumers have healthy skepticism about ALL ads?
Less information for consumers is never a good idea.
On my next visit, he hadn't followed up, so I asked him again. He then reviewed the drug on his computer, and agreed, that it might make sense for the condition I described.
The drug works quite well, both my doctor and I are satisfied with the result.
How would I have ever acquired this beneficial therapy if these ads were banned? Shouldn't consumers have healthy skepticism about ALL ads?
Less information for consumers is never a good idea.
14
For example, for insomnia, go to the pubmed website. You can search for "insomnia clinical trial". There you will see the reports of relevant studies, along with the criteria used to define efficacy and the side effects. Or you can go to the FDA website and look for recent approvals. Again you will get data rather than smiling actors.
Also, you might want to check whether a drug has been tested in combination with other drugs you might already be taking. Most likely, it wasn't.
Also, you might want to check whether a drug has been tested in combination with other drugs you might already be taking. Most likely, it wasn't.
2
You may be one of the few people to have benefited from these incessant drug ads. How many times do I need to see an ad for the same drug? I would estimate that I have seen most of these ads more than 30 times each, probably even more.
All in all, I favor banning the ads. If people want to know about drugs for a given condition they can research it easily on the internet and save the rest of us from the barrage.
All in all, I favor banning the ads. If people want to know about drugs for a given condition they can research it easily on the internet and save the rest of us from the barrage.
3
No, you should have a doctor who's knowledgeable about drugs currently on the market.
3
Instead of a complete ban on the direct-to-consumer drug adds, professor David Vladeck's suggestion of a two year ban following the drug approval and marketing appears more reasonable both in terms of constitutional requirement as well as monitoring the adverse effects of the drugs.
15
I've been coming to the United States every year since 2009. Cannot stop being put on the back foot with these drug commercials. We don't have them in Australia. It is black comedy at it's best. The upside so enthusiastic, so uplifting and so deliberate; (you can have a quick "naughty" with your wife or lover); the downside so quick and so low key;(you could have increased risk of stroke, blood pressure, palpitations); but "ask your doctor". This final statement suggests the drug companies absolve themselves from the effects of their marketing.
They don't seem to care about the health and well being of those who fall for their deception. That is the real real concern where profit is placed higher on the scale than health and lifestyle well being.
They don't seem to care about the health and well being of those who fall for their deception. That is the real real concern where profit is placed higher on the scale than health and lifestyle well being.
187
My favorite was the guy throwing the football in slow motion through the tire swing. Oh baby! You can guess what they were selling. That must have been a fun shoot for the production team.
1
Our government doesn't actually like us; it expects us to be rubes and suckers - and shrugs. It actually likes and fawns over anyone, including any business, with the bucks to buy them outright.
1
This is a prime example of the disgusting greed that is corporate America, stop pretending that these companies are anything other than pure evil.
145
They're "pure evil," on the one hand, but on the other hand observe that this is the normal workings of capitalist America.
4
Drug companies are violating the public trust, in what they advocate and in what they charge for needed medications. Congress and the FDA need to intervene to allow Americans to obtain necessary medications at a fair price.
92
Never look to any legislative body controlled by the GOP to rein-in anything to do with major corporations. They are owned outright by those same corporations. Lock, stock and barrel as it were. Like Dorian Gray, they sold their souls long ago.
2
These ads are symptomatic of our entire health care system. When companies and people are getting rich from people's health problems, something has to change.
187
Thank you for this observation of the corruption and contempt the health system as well as capitalism in general have towards the American people. Life is more than money and Viagra.
3
and its the same in the prison and court system!
2
Leeches and bloodletters all. Next pocketbook er patient please.
1
I have always wondered why do we let prescription medication be advertised. I always thought it should work the other way, you go to the doctor he finds out what is wrong with you and prescribes the medication (if any) that is needed.
69
What eludes me is how many of these drugs address diseases that affect an extremely small subset of the population, yet they blanket the airwaves. The only conclusion is that the markup must be so criminally exorbitant it's worth the expense.
128
I have the same question. Danny Glover is featured in an ad for a condition that causes patients to spontaneously burst into laughter or weeping. Apparently this is a real condition, but it's mostly among those with brain injuries or strokes. But now, the number of people who think they have this condition has increased 25%, and at $750 per month for the drug, each new diagnosis is a goldmine for the pharmaceutical company.
This really isn't how a healthcare system should work.
This really isn't how a healthcare system should work.
1
"Ask your doctor if_________ is right for you" After hearing all the side effects possible, including death, I'm pretty sure most of these drugs would not even come up in a conversation with my doctor. America needs to realize there isn't a silver bullet for every malady they might have.
62
I don't know. Have you ever seen the side effects of aspirin? This include:
black, bloody, or tarry stools;
coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;
severe nausea, vomiting, or stomach pain;
fever lasting longer than 3 days;
swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days; or
hearing problems, ringing in your ears.
black, bloody, or tarry stools;
coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;
severe nausea, vomiting, or stomach pain;
fever lasting longer than 3 days;
swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days; or
hearing problems, ringing in your ears.
1
At long last the Docs are finally trying to do something about the outrage of drug advertising which is becoming more egregious all of the time, and thank you NYT for publicizing the effort. I am sick and tired of "American exceptionalism" and so-called consitutional arguments, with only the US an New Zealand allowing drug advertising, being the cause of not only this, but lack of universal health insurance, and so many other outrages that the consitutition was never written to cover. Maybe the American Medical Association can lobby Congress to create a law to deal with this before the drug companies buy them off. Oops! Maybe that's already happened.
68
I used to analyze medical claims data, including prescription drug claims, to look for patterns of use/abuse.
I remember that a drug that was being pushed on television for acid reflux shot up to the top 10 list for a couple of years. I am not sure it was because lots of patients all of a sudden came up with acid reflux, but most likely because they "thought" they had acid reflux symptoms based on listening to the commerical about the drug.
Of course, there is a cost associated with dispensing all these drugs that are being pushed. That's one of the reason the US healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world.
I remember that a drug that was being pushed on television for acid reflux shot up to the top 10 list for a couple of years. I am not sure it was because lots of patients all of a sudden came up with acid reflux, but most likely because they "thought" they had acid reflux symptoms based on listening to the commerical about the drug.
Of course, there is a cost associated with dispensing all these drugs that are being pushed. That's one of the reason the US healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world.
27
The acid reflux drug to which you probably refer is Prilosec and its follow-up, Nexium. As the patent on Prilosec approached expiration and it was being approved for OTC sales, the push went out to mark the brand in consumer's minds. They needed, for sales figures, the public to know that Nexium was the 'new' prescription drug for ARD and that Prilosec was the standard of care (so that, when perusing the aisle looking for an acid reducer, that name would stand out against that of newer generics,) It worked - there are few generic versions on my drug store's shelfs but it didn't work as well for Nexium since its advantages over Prilosec, with which doctors had some familiarity, wasn't clear. Losing my teeth to Gastro-esophegeal refulx disorder (GERD), I am grateful that Prilosec exists. It is not a one time course - the problem comes back after a time - but it does work a treat.
That said, I find too many things rushed to sale. There is some new sleep aide being advertised that works on a recently discovered neurotransmitter. We don't know the life cycle of the nt, we don't know with what others it may interact and just how it does so over time nor what other impacts are from manipulating it. Given the side-effects of the previous two classes of prescription sleep aides (such as sleep driving/ eating/ sex or aggression,) I would prefer the ads wait until the drug had been on the market awhile and some history had been accrued.
That said, I find too many things rushed to sale. There is some new sleep aide being advertised that works on a recently discovered neurotransmitter. We don't know the life cycle of the nt, we don't know with what others it may interact and just how it does so over time nor what other impacts are from manipulating it. Given the side-effects of the previous two classes of prescription sleep aides (such as sleep driving/ eating/ sex or aggression,) I would prefer the ads wait until the drug had been on the market awhile and some history had been accrued.
1
It was Nexium, Pat.
I am not in anyway discounting the GERD problem and I am glad drugs like that are helping people, such as yourself, with GERD.
My point was that it rocketing up to top 10 (#1, actually) did not make any sense.
I am not in anyway discounting the GERD problem and I am glad drugs like that are helping people, such as yourself, with GERD.
My point was that it rocketing up to top 10 (#1, actually) did not make any sense.
A few years ago I listened to an NPR interview with the guy who pioneered direct-to-consumer ads. I believe it may have been Celebrex - at any rate, he described the process he went through to obtain permission and try out his concept. And then he described the results: skyrocketing sales. He spoke of these sales increases the same way one might speak of winning the lottery - jubilation.
It is patently offensive to describe direct-to-consumer drug ads as having anything to do with educating consumers or any other beneficial result. It's about one thing, and one thing only: increasing sales & profits for drug companies.
I had no idea how severely drug companies are ripping off US consumers until I lived overseas. In Cairo, I paid about $40 for a month's supply of brand-name Celebrex. In the US, it was 8 - 10 times that much for the generic version. Since insurance companies typically foot the bill, no one notices or cares too much. But then when premiums & deductibles go up, we all blame Obamacare.
Want to do some interesting research? Find out just how much money the big drug companies spend lobbying Congress every week. And remind yourself that you & I are paying for that - in addition to the advertising, the executive bonuses & perks, the extravagant profits, etc.
It's legalized extortion, and it's a major travesty.
It is patently offensive to describe direct-to-consumer drug ads as having anything to do with educating consumers or any other beneficial result. It's about one thing, and one thing only: increasing sales & profits for drug companies.
I had no idea how severely drug companies are ripping off US consumers until I lived overseas. In Cairo, I paid about $40 for a month's supply of brand-name Celebrex. In the US, it was 8 - 10 times that much for the generic version. Since insurance companies typically foot the bill, no one notices or cares too much. But then when premiums & deductibles go up, we all blame Obamacare.
Want to do some interesting research? Find out just how much money the big drug companies spend lobbying Congress every week. And remind yourself that you & I are paying for that - in addition to the advertising, the executive bonuses & perks, the extravagant profits, etc.
It's legalized extortion, and it's a major travesty.
334
Well, let's think this through. My concern about banning ads is the lives of corporations. Since we now know they are people, albeit, with disabilities such as deafness, blindness, essentially quadriplegic , etc., they rely on other people to maintain their health. If the ads are banned , how in the world will these corporations be able to make informed decisions about their health? It keeps me up at night. Oh, wait! There's a pill for that!
25
Cute.
A recent, well-publicized study by Case and Deaton showed a rising death rate among middle-aged US whites, beginning around the late 1990s, mostly due to abuse of opiates and alcohol. One has to ask whether the incessant ads telling Americans that all of their ills can be addressed by the right pill played a role in this, since direct-to-consumer ads began at that time.
19
You are on the right track. Yes, indeed, the pharmaceutical companies pushed their long lasting opiate to doctors as an alternative to the shorter acting existing ones. Doctors thought it was safer. What happened was an explosion in heroin addiction as people who had been on the "new and improved" versions that were prescribed for them for pain control following surgery or accidents and ended up addicted to them.
From Big Pharma's perspective, what could be a more perfect drug? Big Pharma is the biggest pusher on the block.
From Big Pharma's perspective, what could be a more perfect drug? Big Pharma is the biggest pusher on the block.
I have been saying for years that a large part of our problem with high health care costs is all of the non-value-added things we pay for under the guise of "health care." This includes not only unnecessary drug advertising, but obscene insurance company profits and the associated bureaucracy, lawyers fees, etc. Our health care dollars should be going to necessary drugs, doctors, nurses and hospitals.
71
>
Not going to happen. Big Pharma bought and paid for our gov't, and by God they're going to get their return.
The entire point of pharama drug ads is to convince people they need something they probably don't need.
I'm just amazed they force the drug ads to delineate the negative effects of these drugs in these ads.
Not going to happen. Big Pharma bought and paid for our gov't, and by God they're going to get their return.
The entire point of pharama drug ads is to convince people they need something they probably don't need.
I'm just amazed they force the drug ads to delineate the negative effects of these drugs in these ads.
18
Actually, they have no choice. If they didn't, and really bad side-effects occur, they would be open to all sorts of law-suits.
What I have seen on TV is simply disgusting. American consumers are prompted to look at ads for products they wil never need. For example, drugs against ADD - in a recent stay in Vietnam, I was surprised to see that they did not even think that this "disorder" existed and therefore did not sell the medications.
16
The onslaught of prescription drug commercials has become intolerable but there is some humor here: A station airs a commercial for a prescription drug, and immediately following that commercial, a law firm runs a commercial warning that if you were injured by that same drug, call this number! Here's a solution: Put big pharma and big law firms in a steel cage and let them fight it out. But please don't televise it!
34
Visiting the US I accidentally had the TV on and saw ads for two different drugs to help control type 2 diabetes; sandwiched between them was an ad for a very sugary product that might help induce type 2 diabetes. Ailment and cure all in one burst. Excellent plan. Wonderful TV. Very entertaining. Only in America. What a disgrace. Here we have health care rather than drug ads.
165
An anecdote:
I was living in London when a friend of my girl friend showed up one Sunday night with a high fever. We rushed him to the local hospital. The ER was dark and dinghy and empty. There was a widow with a woman behind it. We were sent to an examining room and in a minute a doctor showed up. He treated my friend and handed us two prescriptions. He said the pharmacy was around the corner.
I handed the pharmacist the scripts and in five minutes had the drugs, I then asked, "Where do we pay?"
"Pay?" she said, "There's no money in this hospital."
"You don't understand, " I said. "We are not British citizens. We are just guests."
"No, YOU do do not understand, This is England. This is a hospital.. We treat sick people. We treat all sick people, Brits, Frenchmen, Chinese, even Americans. And that's all we do. We just treat sick people."
I was living in London when a friend of my girl friend showed up one Sunday night with a high fever. We rushed him to the local hospital. The ER was dark and dinghy and empty. There was a widow with a woman behind it. We were sent to an examining room and in a minute a doctor showed up. He treated my friend and handed us two prescriptions. He said the pharmacy was around the corner.
I handed the pharmacist the scripts and in five minutes had the drugs, I then asked, "Where do we pay?"
"Pay?" she said, "There's no money in this hospital."
"You don't understand, " I said. "We are not British citizens. We are just guests."
"No, YOU do do not understand, This is England. This is a hospital.. We treat sick people. We treat all sick people, Brits, Frenchmen, Chinese, even Americans. And that's all we do. We just treat sick people."
12
Steve, what I find amusing is to see an ad for something like an alternative blood thinner, and then 20 minutes later see an ad for a law firm telling you that if you or a family member have been injured by that drug you are entitled to compensation through a lawsuit.
4
Here in America we call that Free Enterprise. You have to have sick people to make a profit so the first goal is to make more people sick. In countries with single payer type health care the core of the care is preventative medicine. Here in America we Bulimic Medicine, binge barf binge barf. Someday they will come up with a pill to cure that.
As with many other ads, drug ads often come with fine print which is both unreadable (even close to the set) and gone in too short a time for even this relatively fast reader to get through the dense paragraph. As in so much, the word must be 'buyer beware.'
As to patients pushing for inappropriate drugs, doctors must develop a bit more spine and simply refuse to prescribe that which is not necessary. I suspect that the nature of medical visits plays a role here. Docs have little time to spend with each patient, so even though it may not be "best practice," prescribing a med may be the path of least resistance when the patient is insisting and the clock is ticking.
What is definitely not helped is overall healthcare costs if patients are insisting on a particular e.g., statin, simply because they heard of it on TV. Again, time and disinclination to argue may mean that docs don' take the time to explain that the generic is just as effective. That is where good co-pays and well balanced formularies can come into play to help encourage patients to hold costs down.
As to patients pushing for inappropriate drugs, doctors must develop a bit more spine and simply refuse to prescribe that which is not necessary. I suspect that the nature of medical visits plays a role here. Docs have little time to spend with each patient, so even though it may not be "best practice," prescribing a med may be the path of least resistance when the patient is insisting and the clock is ticking.
What is definitely not helped is overall healthcare costs if patients are insisting on a particular e.g., statin, simply because they heard of it on TV. Again, time and disinclination to argue may mean that docs don' take the time to explain that the generic is just as effective. That is where good co-pays and well balanced formularies can come into play to help encourage patients to hold costs down.
7
Drug ads create unnecessary medical expense at a time when virtually everyone except profit driven drug companies and amoral physicians is trying to reduce costs. Furthermore, drug ads drive away TV viewers with their graphic messages. It's surprising they are allowed at all, and even more surprising they have survived this long. Seems clear the regulators are not doing their jobs. Perhaps too many speaking fees, opaque consulting gigs, or future job opportunities at risk?
18
The regulators are doing their job its just that many of them are ex industry employees or soon to be industry employees. The revolving door of cronyism spins so fast we can`t keep up. Many of these cronies start as paid consultants for industries establishing "unbiased" information to be sent to the regulators as helpful guidance. These " unbiased " consultants then get put on regulatory boards to implement this "helpful" guidance. I see this going on in Iowa on many levels.
Yes, I agree but the real "sin" is not volunteering, somehow, the information on natural remedies for sickness which have mostly no side effects. Half million people die a year on physician prescribed drugs. But if one herb caused a headache in someone drug companies want that to be front page news! In Europe, you need a prescription for herbal medicine. That is very telling as to their efficacy.
4
"In Europe, you need a prescription for herbal medicine. That is very telling as to their efficacy."
It is also very telling as their potential for harm. The word "natural" does not and should not be taken to mean "harmless". Digitalis, for example, comes from the beautiful flower commonly called foxglove and wolfsbane (used to kill wolves which should be a clue to its toxicity) is commonly known as yellow monkshood.
It is also very telling as their potential for harm. The word "natural" does not and should not be taken to mean "harmless". Digitalis, for example, comes from the beautiful flower commonly called foxglove and wolfsbane (used to kill wolves which should be a clue to its toxicity) is commonly known as yellow monkshood.
Physicians cannot escape culpability in the juggernaut of pharmaceutical commercials. They are all too often amenable to acting on the suggestions of patients who see a commercial and then tell their doctor to give them a prescription. The other vexing problem I see so often is pharma reps invading doctors' offices during business hours to hawk their products, curtailing valuable doctor-to-patient time. I guess that blood sugar issues in people have reached epidemic proportions because it seems there is no limit to the number of commercials promoting drugs to treat diabetes. The solution: turn off your set and pick up a good book!
18
The list of potential side effects these drugs may cause makes we wonder how marijuana is still illegal. Oh, I know, being able to grow it yourself doesn't allow for pharmaceutical companies to make billions off it and pay off the politicians.
43
Oh god yes, please. I'm so tired of these ads. Can't we ban them somehow?
81
Drug ads are symptomatic of our entire health care system, one which has been created with maximum profits for all involved, nothing will change until a single payer system is adopted, that will never happen until we cut the head off the snake, Wall Street, special interests and their lobbyists that control the electoral process and everything else. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a friend who just returned from Israel where their health care system, loosely modeled on the European system, is paid for with a mandatory, no exceptions, five percent tax on every individuals income: sort of a take on the "from each according to their means to each according to their needs" maxim, seems to be working well and considering the horrific costs and sometimes bankrupting costs of health care in America a real bargain. Bernie are you up for it?
89
Bernie supports HR676 a simple 70 page bill that gives an improved Medicare to every man, woman and child in America. Since we already have Medicare, and it works and is loved by the people it covers, why not just expand it? After all, it already covers the costliest age group.
2
I never understood the concept of commercials for medication other than over-the-counter. If a medication is so potent and specialized that it needs to be prescribed by a trained medical professional, let the conversation about how to treat the ailment concerned take place with a doctor, not the TV.
Network TV has become such trash, that I have plenty of reasons not to watch it anyway. I have no interest in watching commercials interspersed with movie or series parts, or reality shows for that matter. Drug ads only made the experience more unbearable.
Network TV has become such trash, that I have plenty of reasons not to watch it anyway. I have no interest in watching commercials interspersed with movie or series parts, or reality shows for that matter. Drug ads only made the experience more unbearable.
20
Viagra adds are now nothing less than soft porn.
25
Prescription drug advertising is allowed because the list of potential side effects that close each ad are arguably enough of a public warning. Since the drugs that are advertised on television aren't addictive, and since they require a doctor's prescription to purchase, the argument against them is weak. Do the ads really create an artificial demand? If so, where is the proof? The editorial provides none. There is no proof either that advertising drives up the prices. Most drugs aren't advertised, yet many of them have high prices. Prices come down when the manufacturers lose their monopolies and the drugs go generic, and this has nothing to do with advertising or the lack of it.
1
And who do you think ultimately pays the billions spent each year on drug advertising? The executives of the drug companies? The shareholders? Or the purchasers of the drugs?
10
This is erroneous in many ways. Drugs going generic is not always a way of dropping drug prices when companies like Valeant buy up a drug that is necessary but only produced by one company then push the drug price up 1000%. And many of the drugs that are advertised are, in fact, addictive. No proof they drive up prices. So you think drug companies do this as public service messages. The drug ads often create demand for diseases that are marginal or almost entirely created out of whole cloth. Be on the other end some time when the patient brings you a list of drugs that they saw on TV and think this is right for them or your child. It is a waste of a medical appointment because they're not good for anything.
1
I had always assumed these ads increased demand. But I recently heard a doctor say that patients rarely just ask about drugs. He said that with large copays and deductibles more people now are asking about cheaper drug alternatives.
Like banner ads on the internet, I don't believe this advertising works, though it certainly must increase drug prices.
Like banner ads on the internet, I don't believe this advertising works, though it certainly must increase drug prices.
57
The increase in revenue following the onset of direct to consumer advertising is a wonder to behold. A boon to drug companies and their investors. Not so much for the consumer. More money is spent on advertising than on research to develop new drugs.
A 2003 study by the Kaiser Foundation found that for approximately every $1 spent on direct to consumer advertising, drug companies received a $4 increase in sales. That was a conservative estimate.
A 2003 study by the Kaiser Foundation found that for approximately every $1 spent on direct to consumer advertising, drug companies received a $4 increase in sales. That was a conservative estimate.
1
Your poll of one doctor hardly qualifies as valid. I do get these requests all of the time as do most of my colleagues.
I had an elderly cousin who made a list of ALL medications she saw on TV so that she could ask her doctor if they were right for her. She died.
Thank you for becoming a voice on this matter. The ads do not inform and the rapid-fire side-effect disclosures border on hilarious. Is there any better evidence of the the drug companies disregard for the health of the general population in favor of its greed than its advertising these technical medicines through public airways than providing the appropriate information to the appropriate physician?
7
Those ads are so bad that I don't watch the news very much any more (get it from the internet). Even if you flip channels you can't escape. However, I do amuse myself with the contrast between the visual image of the happy, healthy people (walking on the beach, playing with the grandchildren, getting romantic, etc.) and the narrator who says (as fast as he can) "symptoms may include dry mouth, rashes, uncontrollable twitching, hearing loss, blackouts, memory loss, and death".
211
Yes, l "love" theses ads...........all end with beautiful people, smiling faces......and rapid incantation of side effects: "....anemia, and death. Ask your doctor."
These ask-your-Doctor-ads are playing with life and death; and should be banned not regulated. This is a matter of public health safety and not free speech.
*A Connecticut physician
These ask-your-Doctor-ads are playing with life and death; and should be banned not regulated. This is a matter of public health safety and not free speech.
*A Connecticut physician
6
Apparently the evening network news broadcasts have an aging audience that is a desirable market for drugs. Would they survive without pharma ads?
The death part is so tempting isn't it?
As the sometimes awful side effects are being stated, the screen shows people doing fun and happy things which are meant to distract the viewer from what is being said. The drug companies should be required to depict each side effect as it is mentioned. For example, if the drug may cause nausea, the actors should be shown being sick, not dancing.
20
If drug ads were banned there would be a number of magazines and television channels that would immediately go bankrupt. Which may be a side effect of many of these drugs. To wit (some of the greatest drug ad parodies ever):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSX5Kvj4BM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSpjBE4bvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMPY5FjlaY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSX5Kvj4BM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSpjBE4bvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMPY5FjlaY
3
Do we really want to experience this during dinner while watching the news?
"Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?"
"Never mind. Pass the potatoes."
"Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?"
"Never mind. Pass the potatoes."
12
The government should not ban things because you find them unpleasant. If you don't want to experience advertising during dinner, try turning off your television.
If a person (now a company via USSC) were to make your viewing time unpleasant (loud noises, etc.) you would have a right to call the police for disturbing the peace. But advertisers. especially drug manufacturers, can raise the volume (against the law), put soft porn on your television (against many moral standards), and invade your privacy on television that you now pay for.
I don't know if you remember, but, cable television got it's start by advertising ad free television. In the 1970's were sick and tired of the advertisements. Now it is one drug after another on our televisions. Where is our right to watch what we pay for, not what advertisers pay for?
I don't know if you remember, but, cable television got it's start by advertising ad free television. In the 1970's were sick and tired of the advertisements. Now it is one drug after another on our televisions. Where is our right to watch what we pay for, not what advertisers pay for?
5
I don't see the problem with
"Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?"
What you would say to
"Daddy, what are allergies?"
In both cases, give the child an honest answer.
"Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?"
What you would say to
"Daddy, what are allergies?"
In both cases, give the child an honest answer.
And what’s so bad about inflating “demand for new and more expensive drugs” if we have an effective regulatory framework that assures that the new drugs work as intended? How else would such drugs be developed if not by an assurance that a consumer base will buy them if developed?
The issues of ads and the effectiveness of the FDA at doing its job are two very different matters. If FDA isn’t doing its job, then they should be reorganized to do it better, but this has no relation to creating demand. And if our Truth in Advertising laws aren’t effective enough, then perhaps they need to be strengthened.
Not unusually, a pronounced tendency to over-control manifests itself here among elites, based on an assumption that nothing can be done about avoiding potential negative consequences WITHOUT placing some kind of ban on innovation.
The issues of ads and the effectiveness of the FDA at doing its job are two very different matters. If FDA isn’t doing its job, then they should be reorganized to do it better, but this has no relation to creating demand. And if our Truth in Advertising laws aren’t effective enough, then perhaps they need to be strengthened.
Not unusually, a pronounced tendency to over-control manifests itself here among elites, based on an assumption that nothing can be done about avoiding potential negative consequences WITHOUT placing some kind of ban on innovation.
How about considering the evidence rather than disdaining "elites" who "over-control"? Other advanced nations have lower pharmaceutical costs and better medical outcomes while not subjecting their citizens to these noxious ads.
8
Where's any discussion of a ban on innovation. We are discussing a ban on advertising.
5
Bruce:
How is your argument not a false equivalence? When you compare the number of new drug patents coming out of Europe and Japan (low) with those coming out of the U.S. (high), it becomes evident that others don't need to spur demand -- they just need to sit back and stow away while the U.S. provides them with a steady supply of new drugs, by whatever means the U.S. employs to do that, including "noxious ads".
Then, they negotiate lower costs, forcing the drug companies to charge U.S. consumers ridiculously high prices -- after all, SOMEONE needs to pay the bill that secures all those new patents through incentives. This has always seemed to me just as manifestly evident a huge subsidy to the rest of the West that the U.S. provides as our military protection of them from the strongmen, tyrants and buccaneers of the world -- a subsidy that allows them to eviscerate their own militaries and focus their resources on building comprehensive social safety net frameworks they couldn't afford if they needed to protect themselves.
How is your argument not a false equivalence? When you compare the number of new drug patents coming out of Europe and Japan (low) with those coming out of the U.S. (high), it becomes evident that others don't need to spur demand -- they just need to sit back and stow away while the U.S. provides them with a steady supply of new drugs, by whatever means the U.S. employs to do that, including "noxious ads".
Then, they negotiate lower costs, forcing the drug companies to charge U.S. consumers ridiculously high prices -- after all, SOMEONE needs to pay the bill that secures all those new patents through incentives. This has always seemed to me just as manifestly evident a huge subsidy to the rest of the West that the U.S. provides as our military protection of them from the strongmen, tyrants and buccaneers of the world -- a subsidy that allows them to eviscerate their own militaries and focus their resources on building comprehensive social safety net frameworks they couldn't afford if they needed to protect themselves.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my prescriptions.
328
Pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on research. That says it all.
5
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my groceries.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my newspaper subscriptions.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my gasoline.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my clothing.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my cell phone.
Hmmm... I see a trend here.
We should have a Constitutional Amendment that makes all advertising free.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my newspaper subscriptions.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my gasoline.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my clothing.
I resent the fact that the advertising costs are no doubt included in cost of my cell phone.
Hmmm... I see a trend here.
We should have a Constitutional Amendment that makes all advertising free.
The problem isn't incremental costs from advertising. The true travesty is lobbying costs are tiny and they yield the best ROI industry has today.
1
The poor doctor - having to deal with all those patients demanding drugs they see in ads. Bet this happens multiple times a day, right? I know I am always demanding treatments and drugs from my doctor. And being the doctor he just can't explain to me why a drug would not be appropriate and refuse to prescribe it based on his own expertise.
3
Being such a moron as to enlist in the Army November 1968 means all my drugs come from the VA.
The VA negotiates the price they will pay.
VA doctors are ineligible for drug company payoffs, therefore they have zero incentive to line the pockets of Big Pharma.
Trade my government run healthcare for the Russian roulette of for profit medicine?
Never.
The VA negotiates the price they will pay.
VA doctors are ineligible for drug company payoffs, therefore they have zero incentive to line the pockets of Big Pharma.
Trade my government run healthcare for the Russian roulette of for profit medicine?
Never.
40
The AMA is right. As prescription drugs are only ever meant to be prescribed by a doctor based on clinical need, there's no reason at all for them to be advertised to consumers. All it does is jack up prices and create artificial demand.
408
As a 30 year (long retired) veteran of the industry -- and a former marketing executive -- I can remember the day when direct advertising to consumers of Rx drugs (here and abroad) was taboo in the industry. We even refrained from mass media ads to the public for some OTC products. My work involved marketing of Rx products globally, including some products sold in Europe, but not yet FDA approved for sale in the US. I was expected not to discuss those products even with physician friends in this country until those drugs had been cleared for promotion here.
I preferred it that way. It seemed appropriate. I realize that lay people cannot be prevented from reading that promotional material in medical journals (in libraries) or online. Nevertheless blatant and unsought promotion is not necessary.
Nevertheless, speaking from first hand knowledge, and not biased hearsay, I do maintain that marketing and promotion of new drugs is necessary and that those involved are not the evil schemers that anti-business zealots like to imagine. New ideas have to be sold regardless of the subject matter. Otherwise nothing new happens.
I preferred it that way. It seemed appropriate. I realize that lay people cannot be prevented from reading that promotional material in medical journals (in libraries) or online. Nevertheless blatant and unsought promotion is not necessary.
Nevertheless, speaking from first hand knowledge, and not biased hearsay, I do maintain that marketing and promotion of new drugs is necessary and that those involved are not the evil schemers that anti-business zealots like to imagine. New ideas have to be sold regardless of the subject matter. Otherwise nothing new happens.
15
... and makes the evening news unwatchable with all the sex drug ads geared to narcissistic boomers.
3
Many of the prescription drugs we pay through the nose for can be bought over the counter in Mexico, at well less than half the price. An example- Voltarin, US 100g $53, Mexico $13. I guess they have either a more educated and informed patient base or less effective lobbyists.
5
We quit watching commercial TV because of these ads. In our house it's PBS or Turner Classic Movies. Allowing these ads has helped ruin TV.
153
I don't turn the volume down on drug ads. I turn it off.
47
Consumers can complain to the Office of Drug Promotion if they are irritated.
Over $2.4 billion was spent in 1012 and major companies like Lilly, Abbott, and
Pfizer bought time. Drugs like Cialis, Chantix, Lipitor. and Humara filled the
TV channels. Boring yes, but the prices to the consumer are never
mentioned. Big Pharma=Wall Street.
Over $2.4 billion was spent in 1012 and major companies like Lilly, Abbott, and
Pfizer bought time. Drugs like Cialis, Chantix, Lipitor. and Humara filled the
TV channels. Boring yes, but the prices to the consumer are never
mentioned. Big Pharma=Wall Street.
32
Don't expect things to change any time soon.
Drug companies will continue to produce ads for TV as long as people believe a pill can cure any ailment that befalls them because of genetics, aging, bad lifestyle choices, sheer bad luck or any combination thereof. Networks will show them because they need the revenue. The FDA will do nothing because they fear the courts.
Just read a book instead of watching TV.
Drug companies will continue to produce ads for TV as long as people believe a pill can cure any ailment that befalls them because of genetics, aging, bad lifestyle choices, sheer bad luck or any combination thereof. Networks will show them because they need the revenue. The FDA will do nothing because they fear the courts.
Just read a book instead of watching TV.
28
Once again government permitted the floodgates to be bulldozed by the commercial profit interests of big business, as with cell phones and driving.
I made a conscious decision early on to avoid over the counter remedies based on ads which seemed unveiled in their insult to intelligence. So having tuned them out categorically, I was gob smacked when I realized that prescription drugs were being advertised direct to consumers.
We question why healthcare costs are so comparatively astronomical in this country, and it is because a market has been created and will evermore be tweaked and pushed for those incremental increases multiplied to the bottom line of profiteering entities. Healthcare, is only incidental to that equation.
I made a conscious decision early on to avoid over the counter remedies based on ads which seemed unveiled in their insult to intelligence. So having tuned them out categorically, I was gob smacked when I realized that prescription drugs were being advertised direct to consumers.
We question why healthcare costs are so comparatively astronomical in this country, and it is because a market has been created and will evermore be tweaked and pushed for those incremental increases multiplied to the bottom line of profiteering entities. Healthcare, is only incidental to that equation.
7
The EU countries don’t allow direct to consumer drug ads on their media. Why not? Don’t they want their citizens to be 'informed and educated' health consumers?
They believe drugs should be a matter between doctor and patient. They accept some regulation on corporate profit seeking, which here is equated with big govt intrusion. One result is their children aren’t 'informed and educated about drugs for erections with repeated TV commercials in their homes day and night.
In the US, commercial ‘free speech’ rights are deemed the highest good, just as our billionaire financed elections are sold to us as protecting free political speech. The distortions for profit are blatant.
Corporate donations, a euphemism for bribery to lawmakers, are what keeps the US one of 2 countries plagued with drug advertising. The countries which ban these ads also have mostly public financing of elections, with strict limits on private donations. Why? Don’t they believe in ‘free speech’ like our Supreme Court?
In the past the US was free of these ads, and had stricter limits on private money dominating our politics. But that was before our govt regulation agencies were underfunded, and before our revolving door from congress to corporations became so common. And before our drug costs skyrocketed higher than any other nation, partly caused by huge marketing budgets. It all works together.
They believe drugs should be a matter between doctor and patient. They accept some regulation on corporate profit seeking, which here is equated with big govt intrusion. One result is their children aren’t 'informed and educated about drugs for erections with repeated TV commercials in their homes day and night.
In the US, commercial ‘free speech’ rights are deemed the highest good, just as our billionaire financed elections are sold to us as protecting free political speech. The distortions for profit are blatant.
Corporate donations, a euphemism for bribery to lawmakers, are what keeps the US one of 2 countries plagued with drug advertising. The countries which ban these ads also have mostly public financing of elections, with strict limits on private donations. Why? Don’t they believe in ‘free speech’ like our Supreme Court?
In the past the US was free of these ads, and had stricter limits on private money dominating our politics. But that was before our govt regulation agencies were underfunded, and before our revolving door from congress to corporations became so common. And before our drug costs skyrocketed higher than any other nation, partly caused by huge marketing budgets. It all works together.
221
Correct on all but one statement. Drug prices for the same products, marketed by the same companies, are not lower in Europe, Canada and Australia because of less advertising there. It is because prices of drugs to be covered by nationally regulated health insurance there are negotiated. No one sells them unless they receive a fair price. I say that from the experience of having been involved directly in negotiations with the health minister of one of those countries. He tried to badger us into selling at a price below what had been negotiated as a fair price elsewhere. We then asked that our application for inclusion be dropped in his country, and he could explain to the public why a drug appreciated elsewhere was not available to in his country. He backed down.
5
Thank you Donald Surr for your informative post based on actual experience. Of course, govts negotiating drug prices is the main difference between the US and other countries with long established h/c for all at lower cost. ACA couldn't have passed with regulation.
Still, it's often pointed out that US drug ad/marketing budgets are huge, and that's not true of companies abroad if they ban ads. So that must have some effect.
Thus we need articles on how the profits of drug companies abroad differ from those in the US. How much lower are those profits?
Here, the extensive drug lobbies to congress also add in costs. And evidently abroad, their conservative political parties are not getting paid with huge donations to pass laws increasing drug profits, to the disadvantage of citizens needing those drugs.
These are the contrasts we need explained, to see our system in reality and challenge lawmakers for change.
Still, it's often pointed out that US drug ad/marketing budgets are huge, and that's not true of companies abroad if they ban ads. So that must have some effect.
Thus we need articles on how the profits of drug companies abroad differ from those in the US. How much lower are those profits?
Here, the extensive drug lobbies to congress also add in costs. And evidently abroad, their conservative political parties are not getting paid with huge donations to pass laws increasing drug profits, to the disadvantage of citizens needing those drugs.
These are the contrasts we need explained, to see our system in reality and challenge lawmakers for change.
1
No mention of the obnoxious hundred MPH recitation of a drug's side effects which are longer than the ad itself?
The ads should be banned.
The ads should be banned.
277
Just imagine if the recitation of the side effects were read not 100 mph, but in normal speed--would be even more intolerable.
5
That repetition of side effect information is an FDA requirement.
I love to hear the side effects recitation. It should come first.
2
I completely agree with the board on this. Every commercial first gives an endless litany of potential side effects which makes you wonder if taking the drug is really worth it. Then many of them will have a paid actor tell you after all that the drug is right for you. Color me a skeptic. I find it hard to believe that drug companies can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on developing a drug and with clinical trials and they still have all those side effects? 2 years ago I had a severe reaction from a pain medication for my shoulder and elbow surgery Once was enough
But I think I have a solution. The drug information channel. It can run these commercials 24/7 and anyone who can't get enough of the sexxual dysfunction commercial and hear the announcer say......"when the time is right" can tune in and wonder if indeed, the time is right The drug companies win and I can watch without wondering what the heck might happen the next time I fill a prescroiption
But I think I have a solution. The drug information channel. It can run these commercials 24/7 and anyone who can't get enough of the sexxual dysfunction commercial and hear the announcer say......"when the time is right" can tune in and wonder if indeed, the time is right The drug companies win and I can watch without wondering what the heck might happen the next time I fill a prescroiption
58
" if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours" OMG one can only hope. The drug lobby will never allow Congress to pass legislation barring drug ads, unfortunately
9
I love your first comment. That was epic Thank you for making my day.
1
I think these are ads are the most glaring example of a health care system financed by private commercialized interests. Of course, these ads reinforce the perverse idea that pills are the path to good health and miss the psychological, social, spiritual and motivation determinants of good health. It is one more reason I support a single payer health care system.
13
"In 1962, a law was passed that barred the F.D.A. from requiring prior approval for the content of drug ads."
Now who would propose and support such a law? And why?
Only in America* which has the best government money can buy.
And perhaps New Zealand in this case.
Now who would propose and support such a law? And why?
Only in America* which has the best government money can buy.
And perhaps New Zealand in this case.
85
Just one more example of "American exceptionalism".
14
its always better to get your medical advice from tv adverts than your doctor
15
thx1138: of course I always get my medical advice from someone who says, "I'm not a doctor, I'm just paid to act like one." Remember, once upon a time, "9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camels" or somesuch nonsense was considered the norm when advertising to consumers. Now it's "talk to your doctor" about how you can increase our corporate profits.
Big Pharma = Big Tobacco, just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
Big Pharma = Big Tobacco, just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
11
When I hear these ads, they scare me away from the drugs. Listen to the rapid fire list of problems at the end of each ad. Some of them say, "this could kill you." They are a list of horrors.
Others have commented to me about that too. It isn't just me.
I suppose the ads must work, or they would not put the money into them. But I don't understand how they work. They certainly don't work on me.
Others have commented to me about that too. It isn't just me.
I suppose the ads must work, or they would not put the money into them. But I don't understand how they work. They certainly don't work on me.
121
Yes, have they studied the OPPOSITE of the ads inflating demand? I am entirely turned OFF when I hear the list of side effects...
2
While I agree with some of this particularly one-sided discussion today, I should point out that the listing of side effects is required by law. Also consider that some of the profits go to ceo pockets, but some go into developing expensive drugs that have the potential to cure diseases like hepatitis c, HIV, and cancer. And if you don't like the ads, enjoy learning about fantasy sports betting on another channel.
They work by jettisoning drug-company income. It's like Hollywood accounting--lowers their already tiny income taxes, and reduces the money they spend on any actual drug research as a "nice" side effect.
I'm for single-payer healthcare, and single-government drug development and distribution, while we're at it. Don't just ban these wasteful, wrongful ads for 2 years--2000 years would only be a start. Ban the companies too, and let the state manage that.
I'm for single-payer healthcare, and single-government drug development and distribution, while we're at it. Don't just ban these wasteful, wrongful ads for 2 years--2000 years would only be a start. Ban the companies too, and let the state manage that.
6
Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act!