"Phishing for Phools", the book by two Nobel laureates tells it all: in capitalism selling is inevitably more and more about packaging, not necessarily substance. The question is whether prescription drugs and hospitals should be allowed to do so directly to consumers. America and New Zealand are not the only two countries in the world that are practicing this kind of dubious promotion. Taiwan, as far as I can remember, has been doing so at least since 1960's, and I thought that was wrong and unethical, and "backward" as a society, until now I am really so disgusted to witness this happening in America.
7
The essence of medical ethics is that, above all else, the best interests of the patient come first. Once you let capitalist economic ethics (an oxymoron?) in the door, the game changes. As we have adopted a "business model" for health care, we have created these problems. We need to rethink the underlying principles upon which our healthcare system is based if we want to end such abuses--which are even worse in the medical device industry than they are in the prescription drug market.
12
If you could charge the most exhorbitant amount of money for your new drug, without the impediment of regulation or possibility of price negotiation, why would you hesitate? After all, everyone else is doing it. Being reasonable only hurts your company. (And the driving imperative of corporations is maximization of profit.) For the pharmaceutical industry, a free market economy is a total myth, with drug monopolies everywhere.
Medicare Part D is not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. Be prepared for more and more drugs, including older drugs and generic drugs manufactured by few companies, to raise their prices tenfold, twentyfold, or more. This phenomenon may singlehandedly destroy the healthcare industry in the US, by making healthcare unaffordable again.
It's no secret that the US pays much much more than any other country for identical medications. Either we are subsidizing the entire rest of the world, or we are absolute fools for allowing drugs to cost so much more than anywhere else.
I think it's the latter. Get ready for the current healthcare system to collapse under the weight of increasing drug costs.
Medicare Part D is not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. Be prepared for more and more drugs, including older drugs and generic drugs manufactured by few companies, to raise their prices tenfold, twentyfold, or more. This phenomenon may singlehandedly destroy the healthcare industry in the US, by making healthcare unaffordable again.
It's no secret that the US pays much much more than any other country for identical medications. Either we are subsidizing the entire rest of the world, or we are absolute fools for allowing drugs to cost so much more than anywhere else.
I think it's the latter. Get ready for the current healthcare system to collapse under the weight of increasing drug costs.
15
Doctors themselves are often not aware of the difference in cost of the "new better" treatment vs the old standby when it comes to your out of pocket cost. That difference can be in the hundreds, even thousands of dollars. (Even more if the Shkreli's have their way)
Furthermore the drug companies often mislead with their use of statistics. In fact the "new better" pill may only be better by a percentage point or two. Thank God, I have a DVR to bypass the ads. I also don't think I need a pill for every ache and pain. I also don't think I have the expertise to decide which pill is right for me and even if I did, I would not make a decision based on slick advertising.
Furthermore the drug companies often mislead with their use of statistics. In fact the "new better" pill may only be better by a percentage point or two. Thank God, I have a DVR to bypass the ads. I also don't think I need a pill for every ache and pain. I also don't think I have the expertise to decide which pill is right for me and even if I did, I would not make a decision based on slick advertising.
3
All news programs should be re-titled "The Pharmaceutical Hour".
8
Everyone who foots the bill for the most expensive health care system in the world needs to realize that every dollar spent on advertising is another dollar which inflates the cost of health care, causes increased potential complications from poly pharmacy and takes up valuable time when the physician unnecessarily caves to a a patient's demands or argues against the proposed treatments. When hospitals compete with each other on TV and in glossy ads, who pays? It has to come through higher charges and cutting back on necessary services.The AMA has already come out against direct to consumer prescription advertising. That is a good first step.Additional necessary steps:
1) pharma companies need to disclose their advertising budgets publicly. That can be subject to stockholder votes on whether it adds value or taken out cost calculations when they say they need high profits to fund R&D 2) hospitals should be barred from having advertising budget calculated as part of their costs for government reimbursement programs. If they want to advertise, let is be from earmarked funds from endowments. Let the rich folks who want to name hospital wings will allow their dollars to fund glitzy ads 3) pharma payments to doctors should be banned. No more money for bogus studies, speaking engagements. 4) greater presumption of liability when pharmaceutical companies flog their wares, which then turn out to cause problems, especially promoting off-label indications. Remember Cox-2's?
1) pharma companies need to disclose their advertising budgets publicly. That can be subject to stockholder votes on whether it adds value or taken out cost calculations when they say they need high profits to fund R&D 2) hospitals should be barred from having advertising budget calculated as part of their costs for government reimbursement programs. If they want to advertise, let is be from earmarked funds from endowments. Let the rich folks who want to name hospital wings will allow their dollars to fund glitzy ads 3) pharma payments to doctors should be banned. No more money for bogus studies, speaking engagements. 4) greater presumption of liability when pharmaceutical companies flog their wares, which then turn out to cause problems, especially promoting off-label indications. Remember Cox-2's?
6
Imagine how much health care in this country might have improved if the $14B spent on advertising had been spent on R&D, hospital care improvements for both patients and staff, reducing premiums, and a litany of other things besides the Super Bowl! Imagine!
8
The sad truth is, due to the access issue and the frustration it engenders, when you finally get to the doctor's office, the attitude is, "Don't just stand there, do something". To most americans 'doing something' has more value in 'doing nothing'; especially in the context of a symptom.
The reality is, having been a primary care doctor for almost two decades is most people don't have the capacity, especially when medical anxious, to appreciate the risk/benefit calculus of doing something vs. doing nothing. That is, often the risks of doing nothing (as in the words of Voltaire, "The art of medicine is to keep your patient in a good mood while nature takes it's course") is less risky than 'doing something'.
The big problem is that doing nothing and being sent home with no support system to follow up to ascertain if the 'doing nothing' was the right thing to do...leads inevitably to the mindset that it's better to do something.
If we had a great sense of follow up on our medical system, we could begin to address this. Follow up & empathy are the best medicine.
The reality is, having been a primary care doctor for almost two decades is most people don't have the capacity, especially when medical anxious, to appreciate the risk/benefit calculus of doing something vs. doing nothing. That is, often the risks of doing nothing (as in the words of Voltaire, "The art of medicine is to keep your patient in a good mood while nature takes it's course") is less risky than 'doing something'.
The big problem is that doing nothing and being sent home with no support system to follow up to ascertain if the 'doing nothing' was the right thing to do...leads inevitably to the mindset that it's better to do something.
If we had a great sense of follow up on our medical system, we could begin to address this. Follow up & empathy are the best medicine.
2
Direct to Consumer Marketing supports a pharmaceutical industry which can not and will not compete capitalistically based on the quality or costs of the drugs they produce. Value in healthcare of any product equals the clinical outcomes produced by the product vs. the cost.
It would not be beneficial for pharmaceutical companies if their expensive name brand drug performed no better or even worse, and therefore had no better clinical value than a generic or competitors alternative.
In addition, the companies if the Pharma companies competed capitalistically based on the value of their product (outcomes vs. costs) they would have to change their direct to consumer marketing from, "don't trust your doctors history and physical exam, instead ask your doctor if our drug is right for you" to " our drug is more expensive and works no better than the generic alternative or another companies drug, so ask your doctor is our drug is right for you".
It would not be beneficial for pharmaceutical companies if their expensive name brand drug performed no better or even worse, and therefore had no better clinical value than a generic or competitors alternative.
In addition, the companies if the Pharma companies competed capitalistically based on the value of their product (outcomes vs. costs) they would have to change their direct to consumer marketing from, "don't trust your doctors history and physical exam, instead ask your doctor if our drug is right for you" to " our drug is more expensive and works no better than the generic alternative or another companies drug, so ask your doctor is our drug is right for you".
2
I have never asked a doctor for any medication, but after heart surgery my cardiologist piles on drug after drug. He allows other doctors to contribute also. Next week I am interviewing a new doctor. I can only imagine the side effects.
1
Elisabeth Rosenthal - please write a follow-up on how the laws concerning these ads came to be. What special interests, lobbys, etc made this happen and can any legislation be re-worked to stop,this.
7
I visited my Dr. recently for annual physical. Before I went I made a list of "ask your Dr.,if ________ is right for you." The list was 25 items long - every time I saw a tv ad I wrote down the drug - xarelto, humira, xeljanz, pradaxa, you name,it. At the appt..when she asked me if I,had any questions..I gave her my list. We had a good laugh...although a sad,issue/subject.
3
Elizabeth Rosenthal,
I loved the phrase, trumpeting services to it's customer base people "formerly known as patients" .
I loved the phrase, trumpeting services to it's customer base people "formerly known as patients" .
4
Allowing corporations to advertise prescription drugs has been an unmitigated disaster for this country (Madison Avenue and TV networks excepted). We all, o course, pay for these ads in the form of inflated drug prices and sky-rocketing hospital costs. But saddest of all, the ads divert money away from R&D which could actually be helping people.
And it is only going to get worse. Hospitals are now locked in an arms race of sorts: you must advertise or your competitors that do will put you out of business. The drug companies are becoming mini-movie studios: they are now in the business of selling dreams, not cures.
The only way out of the cost-death spiral that is bankrupting our country is national health care. Business owners (who are not in the drug or hospital business) need to wake up to the reality that out-of-control health care costs are preventing them from competing internationally. It is the unseen force that is hobbling US production.
National health care will take the burden of this outrageous circus off of private companies and allow them to compete fairly against companies in other nations. It will make America stronger. And the only people who will tell you otherwise are the ones getting rich off the current system.
And it is only going to get worse. Hospitals are now locked in an arms race of sorts: you must advertise or your competitors that do will put you out of business. The drug companies are becoming mini-movie studios: they are now in the business of selling dreams, not cures.
The only way out of the cost-death spiral that is bankrupting our country is national health care. Business owners (who are not in the drug or hospital business) need to wake up to the reality that out-of-control health care costs are preventing them from competing internationally. It is the unseen force that is hobbling US production.
National health care will take the burden of this outrageous circus off of private companies and allow them to compete fairly against companies in other nations. It will make America stronger. And the only people who will tell you otherwise are the ones getting rich off the current system.
9
Drug ads in this country do not educate--they are a pernicious scourge luring the uninformed into pressuring their over-worked doctors to prescribe a whimsically named poison. The ads are like fairy tales, with happy people being active--the reality is that 100,000 to 128,000 people die each year from prescription drugs taken as directed. The side effects from some prescription drugs cause torn tendons, rapid heart beat, and on and on.
It's time for the government to take back control of medical treatment by reasserting the credibility of the FDA. Remember when George Bush basically eviscerated the agency, firing many qualified members, and replacing them with shills operating to support the pharmaceutical industry.
It's time for the government to take back control of medical treatment by reasserting the credibility of the FDA. Remember when George Bush basically eviscerated the agency, firing many qualified members, and replacing them with shills operating to support the pharmaceutical industry.
10
OK, OK.
A number of years ago, pharmaceutical reps were prevented by law to drop off a pen or post-it notepad advertising a particular medication, and if they so much as bought you a cup of coffee you, the provider had to sign for it and it was documented as a payment to you personally---as these gifts might influence prescriber decisions. (A welcome respite I might add to the endless invitations to dinners at pricey restaurants, and calorie-filled, time wasting lunches----not to mention the golf outings and yearly lobsterfests and other over the top supposedly educational experiences.)
However, glossy high production evocative mini-drama commercials-I know of one that flew a entire production crew of thirty plus people to Spain to film an archetype of an all-American Little League field-- are displayed on our in home wide screen televisions tailored to those who might have the ailment. Better yet, in addition to solving the ailment, we too might aspire to be a well dressed business person instead of lounging on the couch in an opioid-induced haze, though we might still suffer from constipation.
Sexy women in football shirts all through the season, advertising ED medications? A laughable stereotype.
Yet those educated to prescribe these medications cannot be trusted with a pretty pen or a cup of coffee, so vulnerable are we to having our prescribing decisions influenced.
A number of years ago, pharmaceutical reps were prevented by law to drop off a pen or post-it notepad advertising a particular medication, and if they so much as bought you a cup of coffee you, the provider had to sign for it and it was documented as a payment to you personally---as these gifts might influence prescriber decisions. (A welcome respite I might add to the endless invitations to dinners at pricey restaurants, and calorie-filled, time wasting lunches----not to mention the golf outings and yearly lobsterfests and other over the top supposedly educational experiences.)
However, glossy high production evocative mini-drama commercials-I know of one that flew a entire production crew of thirty plus people to Spain to film an archetype of an all-American Little League field-- are displayed on our in home wide screen televisions tailored to those who might have the ailment. Better yet, in addition to solving the ailment, we too might aspire to be a well dressed business person instead of lounging on the couch in an opioid-induced haze, though we might still suffer from constipation.
Sexy women in football shirts all through the season, advertising ED medications? A laughable stereotype.
Yet those educated to prescribe these medications cannot be trusted with a pretty pen or a cup of coffee, so vulnerable are we to having our prescribing decisions influenced.
4
If I notice too many diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease and other prescription-med ads for the old, the obese, the incontinent and the sedentary (frequent during the early evening news) I turn off the tube and go for a walk. And if evening creeps up on morning, and the ads are targeted to the depressed, the addicted, the jobless and the mentally ill, I know I need to do something about my sleep habits, and turn off the idiot box.
I have wondered about the marketing theory behind the drug ads, though. My doctors prescribe the cheapest (preferably generic) medications with the longest records of use. I once asked my neurologist about a new migraine med I saw advertised, and he told me it was a patented mix of sumatriptan (Imitrex) and an over-the-counter NSAID -- something the pharmaceutical company came up with when the Imitrex patent expired. So I now take my generic sumatriptan with an Aleve. How many doctors are prescribing those Big New Things based on favors received from the pharmaceutical companies? Health insurers should be tamping this down by refusing to cover a patented med when a generic is available (as my insurers do). If someone wants to pay the difference out of pocket, that's their choice. But based on what I read I take it Medicare pays for just about anything, which makes it a cash cow ripe for milking by unscrupulous physicians. Perhaps the criticism should be aimed not at the entities doing the marketing, but those who approve the outrageous billings.
I have wondered about the marketing theory behind the drug ads, though. My doctors prescribe the cheapest (preferably generic) medications with the longest records of use. I once asked my neurologist about a new migraine med I saw advertised, and he told me it was a patented mix of sumatriptan (Imitrex) and an over-the-counter NSAID -- something the pharmaceutical company came up with when the Imitrex patent expired. So I now take my generic sumatriptan with an Aleve. How many doctors are prescribing those Big New Things based on favors received from the pharmaceutical companies? Health insurers should be tamping this down by refusing to cover a patented med when a generic is available (as my insurers do). If someone wants to pay the difference out of pocket, that's their choice. But based on what I read I take it Medicare pays for just about anything, which makes it a cash cow ripe for milking by unscrupulous physicians. Perhaps the criticism should be aimed not at the entities doing the marketing, but those who approve the outrageous billings.
2
We need to BAN ALL DRUG ADVERTISING on Television and in the media! Period. Drugs are drugs. Legal or not.
6
I've never understood allowing the advertising of products with so many potentially harmful side-effects that 3/4 of the ad is a long litany of warnings over a calming sound bed. Why should I be asking my doctor about a medication when it's their job to prescribe one.
3
When cancer treatment caused my mother's constipation, a physician prescribed a patented prescription remedy. We were shocked to discover the staggering price of this drug. She went off the prescription and did just fine on Colace and other drugstore remedies. It's hard not to wonder whether that physician was somehow in the pocket of the drug company promoting the prescription laxative.
Another example of gouging by the medical industry:
During a routine visit to the dermatologist to have my moles evaluated, I mentioned that I had a small wart on a toe. Without further discussion, I was ushered into a laser room where my tiny wart was lasered (it came back shortly thereafter). The cost of the laser treatment: $900. After the wart recurred, I treated it successfully with Compound W. In retrospect, it's clear to me that the dermatologist's priority was to pay off his laser machine and to increase revenues, not to steer me to cost-effective treatment.
Another example of gouging by the medical industry:
During a routine visit to the dermatologist to have my moles evaluated, I mentioned that I had a small wart on a toe. Without further discussion, I was ushered into a laser room where my tiny wart was lasered (it came back shortly thereafter). The cost of the laser treatment: $900. After the wart recurred, I treated it successfully with Compound W. In retrospect, it's clear to me that the dermatologist's priority was to pay off his laser machine and to increase revenues, not to steer me to cost-effective treatment.
12
Will our government ever regulate this again? Follow the money.
“The drug industry spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress last year,” Martha Rosenberg writes for Alternet.
That is $145.5 million. The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 40,000 prescriptions.
Our congress sells itself cheap, compared to what they give in return.
Hillary Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.
As Bernie Sanders points out, the big banks and Pharma give this money for a reason. Consider the recent appointment of Dr Califf to head the FDA!
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/25/fda-big-pharma-califf/
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-army-pharma-lobbyists-washin...
While we're doing the math, the $4.8 billion that prescription drug makers spent on advertising?
The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 1.3 million prescriptions.
On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year.
“The drug industry spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress last year,” Martha Rosenberg writes for Alternet.
That is $145.5 million. The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 40,000 prescriptions.
Our congress sells itself cheap, compared to what they give in return.
Hillary Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.
As Bernie Sanders points out, the big banks and Pharma give this money for a reason. Consider the recent appointment of Dr Califf to head the FDA!
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/25/fda-big-pharma-califf/
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-army-pharma-lobbyists-washin...
While we're doing the math, the $4.8 billion that prescription drug makers spent on advertising?
The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 1.3 million prescriptions.
On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year.
6
I had Restless Leg Syndrome, and took a wonderful medicine I saw advertised during a football game. Now I have Tired Leg Syndrome, and saw an ad for a wonderful medicine during a Hockey game. My question is this, will the Tired Leg Syndrome Medication result in Restless Leg Syndrom?
-- signed, MIT and Stanford advance degree recipient
-- signed, MIT and Stanford advance degree recipient
1
Another piece of this enormous waste of resources is a puzzling aspect of direct to consumer medical marketing - namely celebrity endorsements. In addition to the ridiculous cost of producing the commercials and airing them, the cost of paying a celebrity pitchman (or woman) is mind boggling. I am not sure why Chris Bosh, Arnold Palmer, Kevin Nealon etc. need to be my sources of advice on blood thinners.
3
I should be more horrified than amused at the ad that promises even though it isn't for weight loss, weight loss has been reported. I see what they are doing there.
1
Bravo NYT! You and the AMA are finally stepping up and addressing outrageous direct marketing of grotesquely expensive, often ineffectual, often dangerous drugs to the populace.
But, alas, most politicians, except Bernie, are happily nestled in the pockets of pharma and corporate medicine, and cannot be dislodged by appeals to reason or the public welfare.
Our country has gone so far off the rails so fast, it is mind-boggling. The practice of medicine has degenerated into a money-grubbing free-for-all among Wall Street backed hospital corporations, insurance companies, pharma, medical device makers, the cancer industry, the diabetes industry, the nursing home industry, the hospice industry, the ad industry; with hapless and helpless patients almost completely off the radar, except as revenue generating units.
But, alas, most politicians, except Bernie, are happily nestled in the pockets of pharma and corporate medicine, and cannot be dislodged by appeals to reason or the public welfare.
Our country has gone so far off the rails so fast, it is mind-boggling. The practice of medicine has degenerated into a money-grubbing free-for-all among Wall Street backed hospital corporations, insurance companies, pharma, medical device makers, the cancer industry, the diabetes industry, the nursing home industry, the hospice industry, the ad industry; with hapless and helpless patients almost completely off the radar, except as revenue generating units.
4
These ads are troubling. Take Farxiga for Type II Diabetes. An ad features a group of obese adults of various ethnicities, in a number of activities, backed by a catchy tune. All or most would not have Diabetes and enjoy better health if they engaged in the tougher but achievable act of losing excess weight. Instead the ad normalizes and destigmatizes the diabetes causing disease of obesity.
Movantik coins a new syndrome “OIC” (opiate induced constipation), that is fully the result of the improper use of opiates for chronic pain. This has only become a national problem in the past two decades or so, and curses society with millions of prescription addicts, and much of our current heroin epidemic. Constipation will subside with the end of opiate misuse.
It used to be that we doctors gave ‘orders’ and ‘prescribed’ treatments and medications. Now, aided by ill-suited direct to consumer ads for prescription treatments, we are being asked to relinquish our judgment and become the lackeys for demanding patients who want simple but wrong solutions, and do not want to make the tough but doable decisions that involve lifestyle and behavioral changes. The idea that the best and the brightest become doctors is belied by the sloppy thinking and actions that result in too many prescribers being unwilling to say no to their patients who request or demand the wrong treatments that the rest of society is asked to pay for through insurance and government payment schemes.
Movantik coins a new syndrome “OIC” (opiate induced constipation), that is fully the result of the improper use of opiates for chronic pain. This has only become a national problem in the past two decades or so, and curses society with millions of prescription addicts, and much of our current heroin epidemic. Constipation will subside with the end of opiate misuse.
It used to be that we doctors gave ‘orders’ and ‘prescribed’ treatments and medications. Now, aided by ill-suited direct to consumer ads for prescription treatments, we are being asked to relinquish our judgment and become the lackeys for demanding patients who want simple but wrong solutions, and do not want to make the tough but doable decisions that involve lifestyle and behavioral changes. The idea that the best and the brightest become doctors is belied by the sloppy thinking and actions that result in too many prescribers being unwilling to say no to their patients who request or demand the wrong treatments that the rest of society is asked to pay for through insurance and government payment schemes.
6
I see those ads and shudder. The disclaimer that comes after the ad seems to list DEATH as a possible outcome.
I discuss a problem with my doctor and take his advice on prescriptions. My prescription always start with a tried and true medicine that has worked over the years - now a generic. I take one medication that is expensive and that is it.
I would be terrified to ask my doctor for those that I see on TV as they always seem to have terrible side effects. If you can't trust your doctor about your illness, get a second opinion, but you should never be seduced by the TV ads.
I find it shocking that an intelligent person after seeing those ads would every want them proscribed unless their physician actively recommended it. I don't believe a patient with no medical training should ask for a prescription just because of some TV ad.
These ad should be banned in the interest of people's health.
I discuss a problem with my doctor and take his advice on prescriptions. My prescription always start with a tried and true medicine that has worked over the years - now a generic. I take one medication that is expensive and that is it.
I would be terrified to ask my doctor for those that I see on TV as they always seem to have terrible side effects. If you can't trust your doctor about your illness, get a second opinion, but you should never be seduced by the TV ads.
I find it shocking that an intelligent person after seeing those ads would every want them proscribed unless their physician actively recommended it. I don't believe a patient with no medical training should ask for a prescription just because of some TV ad.
These ad should be banned in the interest of people's health.
2
Ask My Doctor, really? The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies invite doctors on cruises or to "educational symposiums" in luxury hotels to influence the choice of medications they prescribe to their patients! So this is not just an advertising problem.
3
One way we might lower drug costs, at least for sleep prescriptions, would be to watch more Republican debates. Surely the price of Ambien would fall as demand would plummet, although I suppose there might be a corresponding decrease in supply and big rise in prices of anti-depressants at the thought of one of the current Republicans actually being elected President. It is not breaking news that we pay so much for prescriptions compared the rest of the world. Many other countries do not allow direct marketing of drugs to the consumer, they control prices, and they buy in bulk for their healthcare systems. It is no wonder costs are lower elsewhere. I don't believe there is such a powerful and influential drug lobby outside the US and it is not a coincidence that prescription drug costs are lower in other nations. The issue of too high drug prices is one of many that lead me to believe we need effective regulations in many areas. Just maybe Bernie Sanders is right, it will take a revolution
4
I am astounded whenever I see an advertisement for any chemotherapy agent.
I am a hospital pharmacist and have been for forty years. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a patient goes to their oncologist and asks for "the chemotherapy I saw on TV" Any oncologist who hadn't heard of it, or thought, "That's a good idea. I wish I thought of that." should not be practicing. I only assume Bristol Myers advertises that way because it works. But the whole concept of it is absolutely mind numbing. If your oncologist thinks it's a good idea after you bring it up, it's time to get a new doctor - one who knows what's going on in the field.
I am a hospital pharmacist and have been for forty years. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a patient goes to their oncologist and asks for "the chemotherapy I saw on TV" Any oncologist who hadn't heard of it, or thought, "That's a good idea. I wish I thought of that." should not be practicing. I only assume Bristol Myers advertises that way because it works. But the whole concept of it is absolutely mind numbing. If your oncologist thinks it's a good idea after you bring it up, it's time to get a new doctor - one who knows what's going on in the field.
6
I have suffered from bipolar depression for about 100 years. I tried a lot of different medications, some heavily advertised some not. For the last 10 years I have taken a medication that was one of he first antidepressants in a category of medications that are so outdated, they are never prescribed anymore. Every time I need a refill my local Walgreens tells me they'll have to special order it. The medication costs about as much as aspirin but it seems to work the best of all those I've tried. There is no doubt that in my mind that the effectiveness of an antidepressant is partly psychological. It helps if you think it's helping. I Ike the idea of taking an old-fashioned medication that is rare and low-priced. It's like buying something in one of those second hand designer stores. Medicine is part voodoo. It is not an exact science. What appeals to you may be more effective, too. It does not surprise me that advertising affects demand. I suspect that when patients take what they want to be taking, that has a positive effect. I'd suggest you shop carefully and that you be cost-conscious. But don't overthink it. If you prefer pink pills to blue ones, all other thinks being the same, for goodness sake take the pink pills. A pill that you think is cute is likely to help more than a similar one you think is ugly.
2
I worked for one of the largest pharma entities for quite a few yrs. When budgets were allocated, who got the lions share? Not R&D, but sales & mktg.
The barrage of drug ads in all forms of media ad greatly to the cost of the drug.
Like another commenter, I hit the mute button as fast as I can on the tube, or DVR in advance so that all ads can be skipped. The ED ads are especially loathsome. And there's nothing quite like being "enlightened" as to the wonderful way drug X can move "stool" through your system - complete with graphics - while your eating lunch. Disgusting.
The barrage of drug ads in all forms of media ad greatly to the cost of the drug.
Like another commenter, I hit the mute button as fast as I can on the tube, or DVR in advance so that all ads can be skipped. The ED ads are especially loathsome. And there's nothing quite like being "enlightened" as to the wonderful way drug X can move "stool" through your system - complete with graphics - while your eating lunch. Disgusting.
6
I don't see a strong statement about why this advertising exists at all these days. cONGRESS. The same reason nutritional supplements are allowed to make grand, vague claims.
2
I'd like to see drug advertising outlawed but I do not have as much money to contribute to my congressman as the drug companies do. It is really that simple.
4
I mute every drug ad as soon as it comes on the tube. The incessanpillt drug commericals are one of the reasons that, for the most part, I have stopped watching mainstream television. Big Pharma makes enough money off of the consumer anyway and I'm sure the cost of these ads pumps up the prices even more. Every single ad ends with the line: "Ask your Doctor if xyz drug is right for you!" Not only is this pushing consumers to go into their doctor's offices and ask for medications, but also promotes the idea that a pill will solve every medical problem. Too much of that thinking in this country anyway. Everything is skewed--the doctors are the people who should be deciding which medications their patients need, not the insurance companies nor the greedy pharmaceutical companies. I love having all the constipation, erectile dystunction drugs pushed during dinnertime and when little kids are sstill up. That must create quite the conversation!!!
2
In 1970 activist attorney John Banzhaf was able to stop tobacco advertising on television. We need another activist organization to step up and do the same for pharmaceutical advertising. This piece pierces the veil of deception surrounding these ads. I can find no public interest value in allowing them to continue (except to help understand the risks involved with many of these drugs ... if one pays attention to the rapid fire disclaimers at the end of the commercials). Let physicians counsel their patients on medication options. Ban the ads!
3
Not mentioned is, thanks to direct-to-consumer advertising, drug companies and hospital systems now are run by bottom-line business and marketing people because they are the huge "rain-makers". The physicians and scientists who used to direct these organizations have been swept aside to the benefit of shareholders and the detriment of patients.
2
I remember being in Lamaze class over 20 years ago and the instructor telling us the choices we could make when the time came to deliver. Included was a decision to have an episiotomy, Cesarean, use of forceps etc.
I listened politely but thought to myself I already made my decision - I picked a very skilled doctor at the teaching hospital with the best neonatal care facility.
When the time came,it was a bit tense because they were unsure if the cord was wrapped around my son's neck. Not having enough time to do medical school, a 4 year residency, a fellowship and get some experience, I immediately deferred to my doctor who had done it all.
My family watches the American news nightly from Canada. We marvel at the ads and simply laugh at them. My kids are constantly making jokes about you might or not might commit suicide but your nail fungus won't bother you anymore - either way. But honestly, I don't think we can tell you the name of one drug.
Who would tell their doctor what they want based on a commercial? I can't believe anyone pays attention to these ads.
I listened politely but thought to myself I already made my decision - I picked a very skilled doctor at the teaching hospital with the best neonatal care facility.
When the time came,it was a bit tense because they were unsure if the cord was wrapped around my son's neck. Not having enough time to do medical school, a 4 year residency, a fellowship and get some experience, I immediately deferred to my doctor who had done it all.
My family watches the American news nightly from Canada. We marvel at the ads and simply laugh at them. My kids are constantly making jokes about you might or not might commit suicide but your nail fungus won't bother you anymore - either way. But honestly, I don't think we can tell you the name of one drug.
Who would tell their doctor what they want based on a commercial? I can't believe anyone pays attention to these ads.
3
another downside to free speech
like lawyer ads
who needs them ?
like lawyer ads
who needs them ?
1
This is why I now watch the news with the subtitles on and the sound on mute.
The AMA's ban on advertising for drugs can't come soon enough. These magically-named drugs all sound like comic-book superheroes, and make promises in the advertising that are promptly negated by that small print recited so blandly at the end of the commercial.
As if the conditions they're designed to cure weren't sad enough, the idea that anxious patients are buying these pitches, all filmed in "Morning in America" sunshine with the romping dogs and happy children, is even worse. Before you get too invested in this or that miracle medication, ask your doctor how much will be covered by your health insurance.
As if the conditions they're designed to cure weren't sad enough, the idea that anxious patients are buying these pitches, all filmed in "Morning in America" sunshine with the romping dogs and happy children, is even worse. Before you get too invested in this or that miracle medication, ask your doctor how much will be covered by your health insurance.
3
Advertising of ALL prescription drugs needs to end tomorrow, no exceptions.
1
Watching drug advertisements may cause accelerated heart rate, vented spleen, sudden defecation, ulcers, trichotillomania, alcohol or recreational drug abuse, hyper-activated amygdala or sudden new-channel syndrome. Try your remote "mute" button before contacting anyone about these advertisement. Drug advertisements have been found in controlled studies to increase the risk of unnecessary prescriptions and unnecessary costs.
1
After the pictures of smiling people and evacuating dogs, most consumer-listeners never hear the quick quiet speech at the end of the commercials which warns about complication, including death.
For many years I have termed these commercials: Ask your doctor.....You may die.
****A Connecticut physician
For many years I have termed these commercials: Ask your doctor.....You may die.
****A Connecticut physician
5
DRUGS AND PROFITS . . .
Drug companies run ads on media outlets and often use a tag line like, 'We care about your health.' Like most ads, untrue. As profit making corporations, if they were forthright, they would say: 'Our bottom line is mainly our bottom line'.
Yes. R&D and obtaining FDA approval is expensive. So, they spend most of their time on developing new medications which will bring huge profits. That's why there are so many new anti-cholesterol drugs.
All a pharmaceutical company has to do to get approval from the FDA is do research which compares this new potential drug to a placebo and, if it seems safe and does show efficacy when compared to the control group, well it get approved.
But, there should be three groups used in the study: the new drug, an older drug which has already demonstrated efficacy and the placebo group. Often this new drug is no better than others already available.
But, these new drugs are now on patent so they can charge ten times as much as a generic. And, these drugs are usually prescribed to be taken every day for the rest of the patients' lives.
But, when it comes to say new and badly needed anti-bacterials, often a person is prescribed only 10 perhaps a few times in their life. Do the math!
Also, for bipolar disorder, the drug treatment of choice is lithium due to its suicide prophylactic effect. But as a natural substance it is pennies per dose. So, more costly and less effective drugs are often prescribed.
Ask your doctor.
Drug companies run ads on media outlets and often use a tag line like, 'We care about your health.' Like most ads, untrue. As profit making corporations, if they were forthright, they would say: 'Our bottom line is mainly our bottom line'.
Yes. R&D and obtaining FDA approval is expensive. So, they spend most of their time on developing new medications which will bring huge profits. That's why there are so many new anti-cholesterol drugs.
All a pharmaceutical company has to do to get approval from the FDA is do research which compares this new potential drug to a placebo and, if it seems safe and does show efficacy when compared to the control group, well it get approved.
But, there should be three groups used in the study: the new drug, an older drug which has already demonstrated efficacy and the placebo group. Often this new drug is no better than others already available.
But, these new drugs are now on patent so they can charge ten times as much as a generic. And, these drugs are usually prescribed to be taken every day for the rest of the patients' lives.
But, when it comes to say new and badly needed anti-bacterials, often a person is prescribed only 10 perhaps a few times in their life. Do the math!
Also, for bipolar disorder, the drug treatment of choice is lithium due to its suicide prophylactic effect. But as a natural substance it is pennies per dose. So, more costly and less effective drugs are often prescribed.
Ask your doctor.
5
Canada bans prescription drug advertising.
Somehow we have survived without it.
I'm lucky I have a doctor for whom prescription drugs are his last line of defence. It's not a question of cost. Since I'm a geezer I pay only $100 a year plus dispensing fees ($4 a pop).
It's a question of common sense.
Amateurs (patients) should leave medication to the experts.
Somehow we have survived without it.
I'm lucky I have a doctor for whom prescription drugs are his last line of defence. It's not a question of cost. Since I'm a geezer I pay only $100 a year plus dispensing fees ($4 a pop).
It's a question of common sense.
Amateurs (patients) should leave medication to the experts.
6
"In 2010, the cholesterol drug Lipitor, then still protected by a patent, was the most heavily advertised medication in the United States. By 2012, once its patent expired and its price dropped, thanks to generic competition, it fell off the ad charts — even though its utility hadn’t changed one iota."
Is this supposed to be surprising?
Is this supposed to be surprising?
1
How EXPENSIVE advertising promotes expensive drugs and treatments you may not need.
The billions being tossed around used to go the research and development. You can see how in the health industry the profit motive misleads and deceives.
The billions being tossed around used to go the research and development. You can see how in the health industry the profit motive misleads and deceives.
1
There is still a pervasive "shamanism" belief in "medical professionals" when, in fact, they are not really as expert as they would have us believe. Why else would they so easily be persuaded to prescribe a drug or treatment just because the patient has seen a tv ad? Big pharma preys on this mindless "faith" as it pushes its all-too-easily-approved drugs. That we're not able to purchase generic versions of many of these drugs in Canada is proof of the corruption big pharma has successfully purchased from our "lawmakers".
We need credible studies that show whether medical advertising, especially for prescription drugs, is actually improving the quality of health of consumers. Americans are paying for this deluge of slick ads telling why you will benefit from one version of a drug over another, including generics and older drugs with well documented positive and negative side effects.
1
There are so many reasons these ads are bad for us. One that particularly bothers me is what impact they might have on the children of parents who happen to suffer from any of these chronic conditions. Do they scare them or make them worry when they hear the potential harm of medication for that condition?
1
The USA has been saturated with quack or questionable advertising for well over 100 years, with everything from deadly natural remedies to dangerous or ineffective prescription drugs being indiscriminately hawked. When the slickest-produced ads appear in the most expensive prime-time shows that is a symptom that something is very wrong. We all pay the price for this social disaster.
Ethical pharmaceutical prescribing is a sole professionals tool for licensed physicians. If society wants less drug practice govern the practice of medicine not pharma companies. Blaming big Pharma without examining the FDA process for advertising is like blaming Obama for Trump.
1
Not addressed here is the role of advertising prescription drugs in the promotion of drug abuse and addiction. "Ask your doctor if Oxycontin (a highly addictive opioid, also known as 'Hillbilly Heroin') is right for you!"
Opioids are often prescribed to control pain resulting from work, or sports injuries. Once the doctor refuses to renew and the prescription runs out, addicts often turn to cheap Heroin now flooding the streets of American cities and rural areas, most notably in New England. Addicts have few recourses but to turn to street drugs of dubious strength and purity. Overdoses and impurities in street Heroin kill thousands annually.
One innovative solution was instituted by the Police Chief of Gloucester, MA., who started referring addicts to medical treatment, rather than criminal prosecution. One flew there from California in search of medical help. Opioid and other highly addictive drugs are costing too many lives; if "Big Pharma" is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem!
Opioids are often prescribed to control pain resulting from work, or sports injuries. Once the doctor refuses to renew and the prescription runs out, addicts often turn to cheap Heroin now flooding the streets of American cities and rural areas, most notably in New England. Addicts have few recourses but to turn to street drugs of dubious strength and purity. Overdoses and impurities in street Heroin kill thousands annually.
One innovative solution was instituted by the Police Chief of Gloucester, MA., who started referring addicts to medical treatment, rather than criminal prosecution. One flew there from California in search of medical help. Opioid and other highly addictive drugs are costing too many lives; if "Big Pharma" is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem!
4
Will our government ever regulate this again? Follow the money.
“The drug industry spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress last year,” Martha Rosenberg writes for Alternet.
That is $145.5 million. The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 40,000 prescriptions.
Our congress sells itself cheap, compared to what they give in return.
Hillary Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.
As Bernie Sanders points out, the big banks and Pharma give this money for a reason.
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-army-pharma-lobbyists-washin...
While we're doing the math, the $4.8 billion that prescription drug makers spent on advertising?
The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 1.3 million prescriptions.
On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year.
“The drug industry spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress last year,” Martha Rosenberg writes for Alternet.
That is $145.5 million. The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 40,000 prescriptions.
Our congress sells itself cheap, compared to what they give in return.
Hillary Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.
As Bernie Sanders points out, the big banks and Pharma give this money for a reason.
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-army-pharma-lobbyists-washin...
While we're doing the math, the $4.8 billion that prescription drug makers spent on advertising?
The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 1.3 million prescriptions.
On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year.
1
Last year, before we even saw the lung specialist, a pharmacist interviewed my spouse. We knew exactly where that was leading!
The previous visits had included an offer for him to be part of cdrug study. Which he declined. (His lungs, in effect, are calcifying, will slowly cut off oxygen, he's too old for the only cure, a lung transplant.)
The lung guy, we really like him, is a specialist in exactly the disease (there is no known cause, likely it's been percolating for decades) which will gradually snuff out his life.
The doctor explained the side effects of this medication, probably costing an arm and a leg. (We do have excellent dug coverage.). But who wants to feel sick to your stomach and have even more fatigue or be unable to have sunlight on your skin - when you are already dealing with fatigue and shortness of breath?
My husband calmly explained - yet again - that he's had a good life. And he doesn't want to wonder if his symptoms are due to side-effects or the inevitable decline of his own lungs.
He declined the medication, which might or might not slow the progression. But can never stop it!
He declined to enrich the drug company.
We're in our 49th year together. Nothing can prevent us being ultimately separated. But we enjoy each day. We enjoy taking walks in the sunshine - soon, today, as a matter of fact.
We've moved to a retirement community. We have doctors who will help us through palliative care and hospice. Each other - the best medicine.
The previous visits had included an offer for him to be part of cdrug study. Which he declined. (His lungs, in effect, are calcifying, will slowly cut off oxygen, he's too old for the only cure, a lung transplant.)
The lung guy, we really like him, is a specialist in exactly the disease (there is no known cause, likely it's been percolating for decades) which will gradually snuff out his life.
The doctor explained the side effects of this medication, probably costing an arm and a leg. (We do have excellent dug coverage.). But who wants to feel sick to your stomach and have even more fatigue or be unable to have sunlight on your skin - when you are already dealing with fatigue and shortness of breath?
My husband calmly explained - yet again - that he's had a good life. And he doesn't want to wonder if his symptoms are due to side-effects or the inevitable decline of his own lungs.
He declined the medication, which might or might not slow the progression. But can never stop it!
He declined to enrich the drug company.
We're in our 49th year together. Nothing can prevent us being ultimately separated. But we enjoy each day. We enjoy taking walks in the sunshine - soon, today, as a matter of fact.
We've moved to a retirement community. We have doctors who will help us through palliative care and hospice. Each other - the best medicine.
6
Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible for not only patients, but also for we physicians to get accurate information regarding a specific drug. Most drug studies are funded by the drug companies, designed by the drug companies and the authors are paid by the drug companies. Not surprisingly, these industry sponsored trials are several times more likely to show a positive result. Drug reps will always tell doctors that their drug is more effective than it really is and also safer than it indeed is.
Recommended reading, "Over Dosed America" ( The Broken Promise of American Medicine- How the Pharmaceutical Companies are Corrupting Science, Misleading Doctors and Threatening Your Health.) By John Abramson MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2GcHqE8wjs
Recommended reading, "Over Dosed America" ( The Broken Promise of American Medicine- How the Pharmaceutical Companies are Corrupting Science, Misleading Doctors and Threatening Your Health.) By John Abramson MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2GcHqE8wjs
2
Wouldn't the $14 billion spent on advertising be better spent on R&D? Or better yet, in making pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible?
1
Nationalize health care.
Make the feds make the drug companies negotiate drug prices for
drugs purchased by the government. That loophole alone costs
$50 billion a year.
Ban drug advertising.
Make the feds make the drug companies negotiate drug prices for
drugs purchased by the government. That loophole alone costs
$50 billion a year.
Ban drug advertising.
5
I recently spent 5 efficient hours trying to find the retail price of the the shingles vaccine (zosavax). I called and emailed Walgreens, I went to my "preferred providers" (a supermarket with a pharmacy), I called my part D insurance company (Aetna and ARP-United health Care) and other online sites. Nowhere could I find the ACTUAL RETAIL PRICE" or the price the drug would cost me under my several health care plans. The drug is widely advertised on TV, of course with no price. If I had the shot I can guarantee the price would show up on a bill that would be sent to the right address. Could this be an example of the health care problem?
34
".... advertisements help patients make better decisions."
________________________
A dubious statement, IMO (and as the article points out).
Medical health care is *so* incredibly complex, even the MD's and researchers don't understand it. How could a patient possibly do so?
So...that is one of my biggest pet peeves (I have others) with the healthcare industry: You can't really find out if you are being duped into unnecessary medication and procedures.
"Second opinions," are very expensive. And, even then, my experience on that says the "Brotherhood" sticks together.
It's not like you're dealing with other things you don't know so much about -- such as having your car fixed at some garage that you suspect may not be telling you the whole truth (a very common occurrence, I think).
This medical stuff is big-time serious. Life and death things, revolving around profits for the medical industry.
Yet, the ultimate sadness on all this is that the public keeps "buying-in." Duped. Desperate, "sick" people, in some cases.
They (the public) should ask for more stringent laws and regulations to control such advertising. Make it much more "honest." Clearly (speaking slowly) identify the risks.
Over the course of many, many years in our country -- we have seen that "industry" cannot be trusted to "police" themselves on such important things. Government has to do it.
[Tks, NYT -- for bringing this all out into the open. Once again...Yo Da Man.]
________________________
A dubious statement, IMO (and as the article points out).
Medical health care is *so* incredibly complex, even the MD's and researchers don't understand it. How could a patient possibly do so?
So...that is one of my biggest pet peeves (I have others) with the healthcare industry: You can't really find out if you are being duped into unnecessary medication and procedures.
"Second opinions," are very expensive. And, even then, my experience on that says the "Brotherhood" sticks together.
It's not like you're dealing with other things you don't know so much about -- such as having your car fixed at some garage that you suspect may not be telling you the whole truth (a very common occurrence, I think).
This medical stuff is big-time serious. Life and death things, revolving around profits for the medical industry.
Yet, the ultimate sadness on all this is that the public keeps "buying-in." Duped. Desperate, "sick" people, in some cases.
They (the public) should ask for more stringent laws and regulations to control such advertising. Make it much more "honest." Clearly (speaking slowly) identify the risks.
Over the course of many, many years in our country -- we have seen that "industry" cannot be trusted to "police" themselves on such important things. Government has to do it.
[Tks, NYT -- for bringing this all out into the open. Once again...Yo Da Man.]
2
Thank you for pointing out yet another example of what's wrong with the business of healthcare in this country. My hope is that this relentless bombardment will soon reach it's saturation limit and this practice will become so ineffective that these pill pushers will experience some uncomfortable "side-effects" of their own.
2
Pay close attention to the listed side effects of these miracle cures. The cures are worse than diseases.
1
The article is great at showcasing these stupid, wasteful ads which jack up the overall cost of healthcare by probably tens if not hundreds of billions and providing little in aggregate return. Such ads were unheard of until the late 1970s when the Supreme Court ruled that their ban was a free speech violation. Perhaps they should be taxed at a rate of 100% of their cost, and the proceeds returned to US Treasury and the private insurers who ultimately pay for these drugs and procedures.
I don't think this can be laid a the feet of the Supreme Court. There were a host of factors at play, including a movement for more patient (consumer) involvement in their own medical care, the notion that people needed more information than they were getting from doctors (who, along with the drug makers, fought inclusion of the information sheets found in all prescriptions now), the role of the FDC, etc. People - or at least the advocates, another topic - asked for this and we got it, as usual, with unintended consequences.
1
The commercial I find totally objectionable is the one for Opdivo, which shows some desperate looking people looking at letters projected on buildings about "live longer". Its for people with advanced small cell lung cancer. The life extension offered by treatment with this drug is on the order of three months, for a cost of over $100,000. It is obscene to be advertising such a therapy at that cost to desperate people.
We only know what we will do when we are put up to bat in those circumstances. But if I were in a final terminal decline, I think I would prefer to take advantage of a right to die statute, and send that money instead to educate one of my less well off nieces or nephews.
We only know what we will do when we are put up to bat in those circumstances. But if I were in a final terminal decline, I think I would prefer to take advantage of a right to die statute, and send that money instead to educate one of my less well off nieces or nephews.
3
Our so-called healthcare industry (which should be called a wealthcare industry) is not doing us any favors with the ads blitz. An enormous amount of money is wasted on market research, ads that promote products that may not be of much value to most patients, and not enough money is used to ensure that hospitals are safe for patients, drug side effects are minimized, health care costs stay reasonable. If ads, high prices, and highly restrictive physician, hospital, and other provider lists are the only ways to make money, the wealthcare industry in America is not in good shape.
People need access to decent affordable health care. What we have now is access to what we can afford, not what we need. Many of us are putting off care we need. We don't go for eye exams, physicals, tests, or other things we need. We don't get the booster shots we need. We don't go to the physician unless we're terribly ill and that defeats the purpose of having preventive care. The premiums, co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance costs have combined to make health care in America unaffordable for most. Couple that with the waits and the denials and the lack of communication between physicians and what we have is an ill informed, ill served, and less healthy citizenry than most advanced countries. The ACA has been twisted so that the patients lose while the wealthcare industry companies make out like bandits.
People need access to decent affordable health care. What we have now is access to what we can afford, not what we need. Many of us are putting off care we need. We don't go for eye exams, physicals, tests, or other things we need. We don't get the booster shots we need. We don't go to the physician unless we're terribly ill and that defeats the purpose of having preventive care. The premiums, co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance costs have combined to make health care in America unaffordable for most. Couple that with the waits and the denials and the lack of communication between physicians and what we have is an ill informed, ill served, and less healthy citizenry than most advanced countries. The ACA has been twisted so that the patients lose while the wealthcare industry companies make out like bandits.
4
Pharmaceutical companies do not want to compete capitalistically based on the quality or costs of the drugs they produce.
It would not be beneficial for pharmaceutical companies if their expensive name brand drug performed no better or even worse than a generic or competitors alternative.
In addition, the companies would have to change their direct to consumer marketing from, "don't trust your doctors history and physical exam, instead ask your doctor if our drug is right for you" to " our drug is more expensive and works no better than the generic alternative or another companies drug, so ask your doctor is our drug is right for you".
It would not be beneficial for pharmaceutical companies if their expensive name brand drug performed no better or even worse than a generic or competitors alternative.
In addition, the companies would have to change their direct to consumer marketing from, "don't trust your doctors history and physical exam, instead ask your doctor if our drug is right for you" to " our drug is more expensive and works no better than the generic alternative or another companies drug, so ask your doctor is our drug is right for you".
1
It's just marketing folks. When visiting a doctor's office I have often noticed many if not the majority of the sales people I see are attractive well groomed women dressed as though they are headed to a cocktail party. I have often wondered if this a deliberate attempt to sway some doctors toward their product(s).
4
Thank God for the mute button. That is, unless you want to share a laugh over the dark and morbid list of side effects you can expect.
I do though have concerns about my grandkids who are growing up in a culture that “normalizes” and “emotionally celebrates” prescription drug use.
Our own medicine cabinet, growing up, contained a thermometer, a bottle of aspirin, a bottle of peroxide, rubbing alcohol, Band Aids, Epsom salts, calamine lotion and some charcoal tablets. That was about it.
Although you can say times have changed, and they have, what has really changed is poor food, indigestible environmental toxins, and bad water, for starters.
If you’ll notice, financial goals of Wall Street and corporations that develop branding with totally disguised lies that look like “we care”, have taken over the media.
I, for one, don’t want it coming into my living room.
I do though have concerns about my grandkids who are growing up in a culture that “normalizes” and “emotionally celebrates” prescription drug use.
Our own medicine cabinet, growing up, contained a thermometer, a bottle of aspirin, a bottle of peroxide, rubbing alcohol, Band Aids, Epsom salts, calamine lotion and some charcoal tablets. That was about it.
Although you can say times have changed, and they have, what has really changed is poor food, indigestible environmental toxins, and bad water, for starters.
If you’ll notice, financial goals of Wall Street and corporations that develop branding with totally disguised lies that look like “we care”, have taken over the media.
I, for one, don’t want it coming into my living room.
2
Having lost my only son to the (hidden by the company) side effects of a prescription drug, I spent many years testifying before FDA advisory committees, speaking to members of Congress, the media, and etc., to try to tighten up and improve prescription drug safety in this country. It didn´t happen. During the Obama presidency, the U.S. Depàrtment of Justice gave the largest fine in U.S. corporate history for civil and criminal misdeeds against the company that made said drug, Eli Lilly. Yet nothing changed. Not a penny of the fine went towards prescription drug education, and not one of Lilly´s corporate executives was ever indicted. Now President Obama has nominated Dr. Robert Califf to run the FDA, a man with long financial ties to Big Pharma. Bernie Sanders has opposed his nomination, among a handful of other senators. This is one of many reasons I support Bernie for president.
4
The pharmaceutical industry is absolutely without ethics. Real patients don't have enough physician time to "ask your doctor." Then more doctor's time is spent on "preapproval." So little real heath care results.
Pharmaceutical companies should be prevented from airing ads directed at patients. It is bad enough that drug reps misinform physicians.
Profit, profit, profit.
Pharmaceutical companies should be prevented from airing ads directed at patients. It is bad enough that drug reps misinform physicians.
Profit, profit, profit.
2
I hail from the era when medical advertising was, if not illegal, unethical and unseemly at best.
The "Ask your doctor if..." trope is second only to "Tell your doctor if you have any of the following..." symptoms or if you've been places other than your bathroom or kitchen. Both are direct insults to doctors. Those prescribing these drugs are expected to already be knowledgeable of the patient's medical history, and should be asking whether there is a relevant history of exposure or travel.
Prompting by the drug-seeker usually raises red flags in the treatment room. A physician should never demean his patient, and the patient should not demean her. If you feel your physician is neither thorough nor attentive, find another doctor. Using the doctor's failure to allow you to self treat, however, is probably the bigger culprit in doctor switching.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are the classic example of the business adage, "Advertising doesn't cost. It pays." The money spent on ads is merely added to the "cost" of the drug and then applied, along with the standard percentage of markup taken for R&D, materials, supplies, distribution, etc., at the cash register. Yes, the cost of the advertising is itself marked up at the point of sale.
The "Ask your doctor if..." trope is second only to "Tell your doctor if you have any of the following..." symptoms or if you've been places other than your bathroom or kitchen. Both are direct insults to doctors. Those prescribing these drugs are expected to already be knowledgeable of the patient's medical history, and should be asking whether there is a relevant history of exposure or travel.
Prompting by the drug-seeker usually raises red flags in the treatment room. A physician should never demean his patient, and the patient should not demean her. If you feel your physician is neither thorough nor attentive, find another doctor. Using the doctor's failure to allow you to self treat, however, is probably the bigger culprit in doctor switching.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are the classic example of the business adage, "Advertising doesn't cost. It pays." The money spent on ads is merely added to the "cost" of the drug and then applied, along with the standard percentage of markup taken for R&D, materials, supplies, distribution, etc., at the cash register. Yes, the cost of the advertising is itself marked up at the point of sale.
This article is if anything, much too kind.
This advertising, and the amounts of money swirling at the feet and under the beds of politicians and patients is obscene and malevolent.
Working and prescribing for hospice care - for all its flaws, one of the most liberating of clinical situations - gives you a particularly good view of how older, cheaper medications are excellent. In the hands of an expert practitioner they are all we need to manage pain and to treat multiple other symptoms including infections.
I am wary of the creep of these newer medications and their purveyors as they sniff around the doors of palliative care .... Watch out.
This advertising, and the amounts of money swirling at the feet and under the beds of politicians and patients is obscene and malevolent.
Working and prescribing for hospice care - for all its flaws, one of the most liberating of clinical situations - gives you a particularly good view of how older, cheaper medications are excellent. In the hands of an expert practitioner they are all we need to manage pain and to treat multiple other symptoms including infections.
I am wary of the creep of these newer medications and their purveyors as they sniff around the doors of palliative care .... Watch out.
38
My experience is that today's medical un-care givers, with the exception of some independent primary care providers and other ethical "healers", are simply pill and test pushers. The goal seems to be "create billable care" not "cure and care". I have a very rare health condition and have been to dozens of doctors of every type and dental providers trying to get help and have been misdiagnosed and discounted every step of the way. When local medical providers didn't help solve my problem I contacted the NHIS to find who was treating my condition and got NO help - they apparently work for providers and insurance companies not citizens. Finally I contacted a regional office of the EPA working in the field where my condition originates and they suggested I call a Publicly funded agency at the University of Washington and they suggested a doctor at the University who has agreed to see me. I've been looking for help with this condition for over four years with virtually NO assistance from those who should be working for/with me. The whole medical system has gone to hell since Wall Street took it over - just like every other system they take over. Time to nationalize the whole complex to control prices and DEMAND they return to providing real patient care.
14
The direct advertisements on TV (and elsewhere) are a disgrace, and ought to be prohibited. Pharma paints an idyllic picture of the wonders a given BRAND drug offers, not bothering to tell it is the most expensive among similar and effective generic cheap alternatives. The public is not sophisticated enough to see the unfair and self-serving advertising, gullibility translated into demanding a cowed physician those 'out-of-reach' medications, costing 'an arm and a leg'. Further, these supposedly wonder drugs may not be proven as safe as the older and equally efficacious generic counterparts. Hospital advertising by telling the story of a given case is misleading as well, given that there are many highly competent places to get excellent care but without all this 'flashing light and bombastic self-promotion'. Once upon a time, we had to tolerate mainly Viagra and Cialis fighting for the airways, but now it has spread shamelessly, raising the cost of health care astronomically and to no advantage to a confused public, anxious to have the best 'whatever' even at the cost of not understanding any of the long list of side effects; it appears as though the 'doctor' is there just to explain it all...and call in the prescription, as suggested by mighty but ethically challenged Pharma. Where is the FDA?
6
"But capital allows us to make rational choices about goods and services! Advertising is just truth dressed up in glossy panorama! It must be the best, most effective product if they're advertising on the front page of the NYTimes! If I can't watch two retirees bathing in separate bathtubs, how would I know about the personal effectiveness of your ED treatment? If I don't know who has the finest, most luxurious in-patient facilities, how will I ever get through an emergency procedure?"
There--does that qualify me for a job in medical advertising? Or maybe it just makes me a paid liar who is once again showing the transparent absurdity of capitalist healthcare.
There--does that qualify me for a job in medical advertising? Or maybe it just makes me a paid liar who is once again showing the transparent absurdity of capitalist healthcare.
2
One reason many doctors prescribe unneeded medicines when patients request them after seeing an ad, is that hospitals often rate doctors with patient satisfaction scores. Man doctors even get bonus payments for higher scores. So as long as the drug isn't harmful and they patient's insurance will pay, they prescribe...
4
This just doesn't make any sense at all. A physician is allowed to practice medicine because the government provides this person a license to do so. The assumption is that a physician will act in the public's interest. As a result, it should not matter how much advertising is spent on specific drugs, physicians should not make up diagnoses that don't exist, or prescribe medicines that may not be effective. Period. This is what we entrust them to do, both the people and the government. It is their responsibility. Period.
1
"The assumption is that a physician will act in the public's interest." - Not to quibble, but I expect my physician to act in my ("a patient's") interest before any other consideration.
The big pharmaceutical companies spend billions on consumer advertising and lobbying Congress, all the while claiming that their margins still aren't big enough to fund often government subsided research. In the wealth of countries that regulate drug pricing, pharmaceutical companies charge a fraction of what the citizens of the United States are forced to pay. We, in essence, are the ones who fund the rest of the world's access to brand drugs and medical devices. If one of our clients contracted Hep-C, I would tell him to consider treatment in India. You can get the same 12-week one pill per day regiment with a nearly 100% cure rate for 1% of the $100,000 or more cost for the same treatment in the U.S. How this isn't criminal I simply do not know.
12
Yes, and they write advertising, promotion and research/development costs off their taxes as a "business expense". That MUST stop.
6
Ooops. Meant to say that the government should take back control of what medicines are available for prescription--not control of the medical profession.
1
What we need more of us good histories and physician examinations. We need a lot fewer meds, and we need the meds we have to be cheaper. We need a lot fewer knee surgeries. We need virtually no back surgeries for pain, and we need to use less imaging.
2
I would like to see hospitals change their policies and allow a patient to bring their medications, vitamins, and supplements from home instead of having to be dispensed through the very expensive hospital pharmacy. It's not right for a patient to have to wait a full day or longer for non-generic medications from the hospital pharmacy, especially if it is something that needs to be taken on a regular basis at the same time each day and you have them with you. Give the meds from home to the nurses to dispense if you need them. Also, demand that they not roll their eyes just because you prefer to take supplements like vitamins, probiotics, etc. and would rather have healthy meals brought to you by a friend of family member over the junk that passes for food from the hospital kitchen.
Giant medical insurance corporations, hospital corporations and pharmaceutical corporations are not in business for your optimal health. Huge profits are their only goals.
Giant medical insurance corporations, hospital corporations and pharmaceutical corporations are not in business for your optimal health. Huge profits are their only goals.
2
Fine, but you must also then protect the hospitals from liability if you choose to use your own meds, food, etc. You can't have a patient in a hospital making their own choices on drugs (and known or unknown interactions that may occur) or other matters that may affect the quality or outcome of care and, at the same time, expect them to be liable for a bad result. You can thank lawyers and greedy litigants, but that's the reason behind a lot of these rules.
When I was growing up we often heard a simple phrase. And we believed it.
"Truth in advertising." It was accepted that those who advertised must be telling the truth. I have no idea if it was as bad then as it is now. That NY hospital ad mentioned at the end of this article, claiming to be NY's "finest" but actually being ranked third in neurosurgery is appalling. One can really never believe an ad, not even in matters of life and death.
Money really is the root of all evil in the ad world. Maybe we need a disclaimer at the end of all ads: "The claims in this advertisement have not been certified as true." Just to remind all of us dumb clucks, as my dad would have put it.
"Truth in advertising." It was accepted that those who advertised must be telling the truth. I have no idea if it was as bad then as it is now. That NY hospital ad mentioned at the end of this article, claiming to be NY's "finest" but actually being ranked third in neurosurgery is appalling. One can really never believe an ad, not even in matters of life and death.
Money really is the root of all evil in the ad world. Maybe we need a disclaimer at the end of all ads: "The claims in this advertisement have not been certified as true." Just to remind all of us dumb clucks, as my dad would have put it.
26
Since people don't pay attention to the "not certified" disclaimers we should remember another old phrase - caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. Too many focus on the supposed or touted benefit (whether they need it or not, another issue) and dismiss the risk with a "that won't happen to me" attitude.
As always,context is important.We spend huge amounts on healthcare without the outcomes to show for it because we waste so much,be it in administration,advertising,sky high pricing or over utilization.The fact that pharmaceutical promotion now focuses on less common higher cost diseases is actually a positive because such medicines are much less likely to be prescribed inappropriately by physicians.Competition for patients between providers,be they MDs or hospitals also accounts for inappropriate or over utilization on the premise that "if we don't provide it,another will".Finally,the ability of patients to select treatments and facilities provides the incentive to try and steer them in a particular direction through messaging that seeks to impress (we have a gamma knife) or play on their emotions (we have nurse coordinators or multi speciality teams).The reality that the average patient is ill equipped to understand,let alone choose, based on such messaging is understood the world over but somehow overlooked here at home.
Contrary to what the writer states, current regulations do not mandate that manufacturers list all potential side effects and risks in ads, only "major risks," plus a reference to where consumers can find more information.
It was this regulatory change in the late 1990s that opened the floodgates to direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads on television. Of course, the consumers pay for the ads through rising drug prices.
I would like to know who, among the crop of presidential candidates, supports the AMA's call for a ban on such advertising--who isn't beholden to drug company lobbyists.
It was this regulatory change in the late 1990s that opened the floodgates to direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads on television. Of course, the consumers pay for the ads through rising drug prices.
I would like to know who, among the crop of presidential candidates, supports the AMA's call for a ban on such advertising--who isn't beholden to drug company lobbyists.
3
I don´t know which of the presidential candidates supports the AMA´s call for a ban on direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, but I do know that Bernie Sanders was one of a handful of Senators ...Elizabeth Warren was another...to try to block Obama´s nominee to run the FDA, Dr. Robert Califf, a physcian with longstanding financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
2
Clearly 'El Chapo' was using an out-of-date business model.
It's become difficult to watch commercial television with the drumbeat of advertisements invoking illness, side-effects, doctors, death. Makes me nostalgic for "Miller Time."
3
This article makes doctors seem like powerless participants in the prescription process. A patient mentions an ad and asks for something. In most cases, I imagine, the doctor can and should say "no" or recommend cheaper, equivalent options. If the AMA means what it said, it should get its members on board and stop over-prescribing unnecessary meds.
2
There are countervailing pressures, however. In reality, most physicians don't have the time to talk patients out of prescription requests at length. In addition, many physicians are rated according to patient satisfaction by their employers or hospitals. Turning patients down negatively affects such ratings and, under some regimes, physician compensation.
There are good reasons why every nation in the world (except for the US and New Zealand, the latter of which has other protections we don't have) prohibits direct mass marketing of prescription drugs to consumers.
There are good reasons why every nation in the world (except for the US and New Zealand, the latter of which has other protections we don't have) prohibits direct mass marketing of prescription drugs to consumers.
1
The Healthcare Industrial Complex is just one more example of capitalism run amock. It appears that we need more counterbalance to big pharma and that our governmental regulatory bodies are incapable of action due to the heavy influence of lobbyists and revolving door hiring between industry and regulatory agencies. We need a healthcare system dominated by more consumer owned coops or other novel ownership structures instead of just more predatory corporations.
4
Just before writing this a Xifaxin ad with its twisted pink intestine creature popped up alongside the story's copy. Hello...
2
The FDA *should* require that a new drug outperform an existing one in safety, cost, and efficacy. The number of 'me, too' drugs (identical, or only slightly different, chemical compounds as drugs already on the market) that make vast fortunes for pharma firms makers is significant and trending only upward.
I believe New Zealand requires this already.
I believe New Zealand requires this already.
2
Drug company ads are viewed as protected speech and may never be reined in. Hospitals, it seems to me are another matter. Most large hospital systems are granted not-for-profit status for the purposes of taxation. In addition, much of their revenue comes from federal funds through Medicare payments. As such, it seems to me that these entities are taking advantage of our money that is to be used for the good of patients and diverting it to marketing. Moreover, there is no data that suggests that hospital advertising does anything to help a hospital's bottom line. In fact, it probably reduces profit. Therefore, it seems that hospital advertising should be ripe for pruning. A law that prohibits tax exempt entities from advertising for patients, or using any funds derived from Medicare in the process of advertising, should be created to save us, the taxpayers, money. Studies from 20 years ago demonstrated that hospital advertising only helps advertisers, not hospitals. Is there any reason to think that fact has changed since then?
1
When doctors give patients what they ask for, it's often because doctors are heartened by patients' increased ownership and participation in their treatment. Passive patients with tepid commitment to treatment is a bigger problem than ad-responsive patients. And with 3 minute doctor conversations the norm, a patient who speaks up about an unaddressed problem is a good thing.
Doctors are ethical professionals, they rarely treat non-existing conditions. Pharmacists regularly switch patients to generics or cheaper treatments. There are some checks and balances in the system.
What is true is that pharma advertising rarely supports pro's-vs.-con's decision-making, and this is badly needed. Advertising guidelines to move pharma ads to the next level--ads that support informed rational decision making--is the answer, not "to ban, or not to ban."
Doctors are ethical professionals, they rarely treat non-existing conditions. Pharmacists regularly switch patients to generics or cheaper treatments. There are some checks and balances in the system.
What is true is that pharma advertising rarely supports pro's-vs.-con's decision-making, and this is badly needed. Advertising guidelines to move pharma ads to the next level--ads that support informed rational decision making--is the answer, not "to ban, or not to ban."
I have no problem with fantastic advertising, and with people choosing luxury or inflated brand name options. At least, I have no qualms when it comes to cars, watches, vacations, etc., which most people buy with cash (or foolish people buy with credit).
The real issue here is peddling higher cost options to buyers that are spending other peoples' money. Why not demand the drug that costs 10 (or 100) times more?
The real issue here is peddling higher cost options to buyers that are spending other peoples' money. Why not demand the drug that costs 10 (or 100) times more?
Sunshine Act for Congress is what we need. Congress gives pharmaceutical companies free rein because of heavy industry spending on lawmakers. Sunshine laws where money spent on each lawmaker is made public should be extended from doctors to Congress. It did a lot of good to doctors, it would do a lot of good to lawmakers.
1
Thanks for bringing this topic into the public conversation. I recently got a prescription for a topical nail fungal medication (not the Jubilia that was mentioned). The prescription said "generic substitute allowed". I checked prices for the tiny, nail polish type container. At CVS it was $1000 for the brand name and $98 for the generic. At Costco, the generic was $43. With my insurance it was $12 for the generic at Costco. Let's leave it up to the doctors to make the judgement about medicines, not the consumer. Big pharma is entitled to make a profit to cover the initial R&D, but they don't need to cover unnecessary consumer advertising expenses.
"Holly Campbell, a spokeswoman for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical manufacturers trade association, said that advertisements help patients make better decisions. Drug makers are “designing their advertising to provide scientifically accurate information to help patients better understand their health care and treatment options,” she said."
I don't know how people like her sleep at night. Oh, wait...actually I do know how...why Ambien of course!! lol
I don't know how people like her sleep at night. Oh, wait...actually I do know how...why Ambien of course!! lol
7
We have a health "scare" system rather than a health "care" system.
3
Advertising of drugs, with their many side effects, should be banned. Patients pay for those ads through higher cost, even if insurance picks up the bulk of the payment leaving only a co-pay. Drug companies rattle through devastating side effects of pharmacy meds, including even death, while showing happy people in pretty scenes.
Lets work to ban the ads and reduce the cost of drugs!
Lets work to ban the ads and reduce the cost of drugs!
1
Good column on an important issue. When I see these ads, either in print or on the screen, I suspect the risks are articulated in the tiny print I cannot read, or am discouraged from reading by the size of the type.
Sadly, like so many things that need change, a ban on direct advertising of drugs will not come in the absence of campaign finance reform. Both the pharma and the media industry have too much to lose.
Sadly, like so many things that need change, a ban on direct advertising of drugs will not come in the absence of campaign finance reform. Both the pharma and the media industry have too much to lose.
1
Profiteering has completely overtaken our health care system.
5
Elizabeth, thank you for being the steady champion of patients across America. You continue to highlight the corruption in the healthcare industry and the fleecing of Americans.
Next up, I hope, will be an expose on how Americans are either becoming bankrupt by medical bills or forgoing medical treatment all together.
Next up, I hope, will be an expose on how Americans are either becoming bankrupt by medical bills or forgoing medical treatment all together.
6
Each time I see a commercial for a drug that treats a skin rash with a strong cancer drug, or that thins blood at the risk of inducing a hemorrhage for which no medical rescue is possible, my sense that the FDA protects people shrinks a little more.
3
We all pay for this in our insurance premiums, and the money winds up in the pockets of billionaire media barons.
2
I understand the need for affordable drugs & health care. I voted for Obama twice. However, this remains a capitalist society. Those adds for expensive drugs are like commercials for BMW & Mercedes. Everyone wants one but not everyone can afford one. Nor is everyone entitled to an expensive car. An educated consumer is the best consumer. Talk to your physicians about those advertised drugs. If they are appropriate & affordable, maybe you'll walk out with a script. Pharma is like any other industry, built on supply & demand. And it's the first place everyone will turn when they need a cure to the next Zika or Ebola.
1
Long overdue to read an article such as this! What's behind Big Pharma's agenda on this is exactly as I suspected. Happily, over four years ago I cut the cable cord and so have blissfully been freed from all such vile drug company advertising—and TV weathermen (topic for another day) forecasts!
At times, I've wondered...gosh, what are the latest health issues that are scaring everyone — or our nearest and dearest. I got so fed up with the "everyone has..." STD, Herpes, blood pressure, erectile dysfunction, toenail fungus, asthma, whatever medical thing was 'hot' for ten months of push advertising. When my magazines come with ads for whatever, followed by three-full pages of fine print/legal boilerplate —I rip them out before continuing to more important things like restaurant reviews.
...let's not forget the snotty, usually green & yellow cartoon characters used to 'illustrate' these despicable ads. Worst advertising techniques EVER!
At 95 my mother's doctor wanted her to begin taking Fosamax to protect her bones. I think she used the FREE sample for about a month before tossing the rest. She turns 99 next week—just finish hanging new shades, drives herself everywhere, and can't wait to get out in the garden.
At times, I've wondered...gosh, what are the latest health issues that are scaring everyone — or our nearest and dearest. I got so fed up with the "everyone has..." STD, Herpes, blood pressure, erectile dysfunction, toenail fungus, asthma, whatever medical thing was 'hot' for ten months of push advertising. When my magazines come with ads for whatever, followed by three-full pages of fine print/legal boilerplate —I rip them out before continuing to more important things like restaurant reviews.
...let's not forget the snotty, usually green & yellow cartoon characters used to 'illustrate' these despicable ads. Worst advertising techniques EVER!
At 95 my mother's doctor wanted her to begin taking Fosamax to protect her bones. I think she used the FREE sample for about a month before tossing the rest. She turns 99 next week—just finish hanging new shades, drives herself everywhere, and can't wait to get out in the garden.
3
"Advertising helps consumers to make better decisions" is the most ridiculous and false statement I have ever heard spoken by a professional.
106
Drug companies don't write Rxs, they don't order anything, their pitch is to the patient who is largely incapable of deciding what he wants and always believes the side-effects and fatalities will happen to someone else, not him and demands the new, happily given by their compliant MD. Most think that choice in medicine gives them a Constitutional right to have any treatment, any place, by any MD and to be immune from any cost. The MD, on the other hand, believes he should be able to do anything they want, as often as they want and to be paid whatever they charge. This unholy alliance of co-mingled interests ensures that the utilization and cost of all medical services will rise faster than we can pay for it. The only solution is to take away the common denominator, the word choice, which is the situation all over the world where a National Health Service is the rule. Getting that done here will be harder than changing the second amendment.
2
Face to Face time with your doctor is a precious thing. This marketing forces the doctor to use that time telling the patient why "XXXX" is NOT "right for you" .
Some doctors just capitulate and write the script rather than fight it. This reminds me why I left primary care after 30 years.
Some doctors just capitulate and write the script rather than fight it. This reminds me why I left primary care after 30 years.
2
In addition to shilling for Big Pharma, these drug ads do something else that is chilling to me...they promote illness. These ads clearly tell people that being sick is normal and being healthy is really not possible without using their drugs. This is an insidious and sneaky way of creating a consumer (not a "patient" or a "person") for their products. Pharmaceutical advertising should be banned the same way cigarette ads and hard liquor ads are banned. And for the same reason...the health of the People is at stake.
6
This article only obliquely mentions the fact that the overwhelming majority of health conditions being treated with medications can be ameliorated through the use of LIFESTYLE CHANGES or MODIFICATIONS. Even the ubiquitous Type 2 Diabetes can often be eliminated, if treated early, by loss of weight, increase in exercise, stress reduction behaviors, and changes in the types of foods eaten. This is the true criminality of the pharmaceutical companies and their henchmen (and henchwomen) the physicians (and osteopaths). We must espouse freedom, freedom and freedom of action, whether it is the consumption of excessive carbohydrates to make us fat, or the excessive consumption of alcohol and medications to control our behavior, or the excessive consumption of television, or the internet to reduce our physical activity. It is time to recognize that we can control our bodies with natural means. Most of the illnesses we have are self induced and can be prevented. Decades ago an Indian tribe in the West recognized that the massive amount of diabetes in their tribal members was due to the almost total absence of exercise because their history for thousands of years included large amounts of physical activity. They set up a group exercise program on a daily basis and what do you know? they ended the plethora of diabetes in the tribe. We are all animals and we need activity, anaerobic and aerobic; if we get it, many of not most of the need for pills, pills and pills will disappear.
3
One of the problems is that roughly 12% of Americans possess adequate health literacy skills. And of these, I'm willing to guess even fewer can adequately evaluate the validity of claims made in most drug advertisements. To make matters even worse, a good number of physicians (and politicians and journalists) lack the capacity to understand some very basic health statistics. And shaping health information in a way that is sometimes intentionally misleading can have serious health consequences. There is a benefit to including more rigorous statistics in medical school and teaching basic 'citizen' statistics at even the high school level. Because the inability to grasp the figures and numbers being thrown around leaves patients and society very susceptible to manipulation at very vulnerable times. And if they don't fully comprehend the data, they at least may walk away with the questions they need to ask.
2
I heartily agree with this. As a physician I am appalled at the growth of advertising, and I don't believe it contributes positively to the health of our patients. If you doctor doesn't know the up-to-date treatments for your ailment, get another doctor!
As a form of perverse entertainment these ads are quite something else. The one phrase I absolutely "love" is "tell your physician if you live in an area where fungal infections are common." How the heck does the average person know that, and won't the physician know to ask (or already know) if he's prescribing one of these drugs where it's a concern? For those of you living in Bakersfield, that's Coccidioidomycosis, and for those of you in Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys that's Blastomycosis. Heard of those? What's common? These are relatively rare diseases. Of course the FDA makes them say some of this garbage, but really?
As a form of perverse entertainment these ads are quite something else. The one phrase I absolutely "love" is "tell your physician if you live in an area where fungal infections are common." How the heck does the average person know that, and won't the physician know to ask (or already know) if he's prescribing one of these drugs where it's a concern? For those of you living in Bakersfield, that's Coccidioidomycosis, and for those of you in Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys that's Blastomycosis. Heard of those? What's common? These are relatively rare diseases. Of course the FDA makes them say some of this garbage, but really?
3
The AMA needs to step up their campaign to end direct to consumer advertising of not only pharmaceuticals and medical devices but hospitals and practices making at best dubious and at worst slanderous claims for how their capabilities, services, track records, etc. offer "better" outcomes for patients than competitors. ALL consumers are paying for this hyper-expensive marketing which would better go towards R&D, enhancing patient services and medical education. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate for president talking about these issues, in part because he's the only one not in hock to these industries. We have to challenge the ridiculous claims of these firms that advertising is a free speech issue and/or "educates" consumers. Health care companies (and that includes insurers) need to get back to the business of delivering world-class science and patient care to match the world-class costs our society is paying for them. The original Affordable Care Act would have eliminated many scurrilous practices but the legislation never survived the industry lobbying knives. Please stand up AMA not only for the American public but a fast growing share of your membership who regret this ban having been lifted in the 1980s and every day see firsthand how much havoc is being wreaked by out of control marketing on their patients.
4
The days of advertising medicines of any kind, which once featured things like a giant hammer pounding on an anvil to represent a splitting tension headache, now feature annoyingly cute animated bladders and intestines; words like "sleep" and "awake" that look and act like the family cat and dog, respectively; and even the Big Bad Wolf (with a cameo of the 3 Little Pigs) all collectively representing the latest batch of prescription meds, all still in the name of "Fast, Fast, FAST relief."
It's bad enough that these kinds of commercials air in the first place. But, to whose benefit are they, REALLY?
It's bad enough that these kinds of commercials air in the first place. But, to whose benefit are they, REALLY?
2
I find it hard to make a case that the American public is measurably any better off (physically, financially, morally, ethically) since we started to be assailed around the clock by ad after ad about "E.D." or restless leg syndrome or uncontrolled laughing or some other obscure ailment with an accompanying laundry list of horrendous side effects. Not to say that some of these things aren't legitimate medical concerns of some, but a slick TV ad is not a replacement for component medical evaluation and advice.
"Ask your doctor about..." ranks right up there with "you may be entitled to compensation for... (oh yes, that ruinous attitude hasn't hurt us and clogged the court system, has it?!?)" are two of the worst plagues visited upon an unsuspecting public in the past 30 years. Feeding the greedy maw of slavering trial lawyers and big pharmaceutical companies has served their bottom lines but not the American public's best interest. Both should be stopped - and neither likely will. We pay a huge price for this imagined benefit though I have yet to see any credible evidence that the greater public good is helped by any of it.
"Ask your doctor about..." ranks right up there with "you may be entitled to compensation for... (oh yes, that ruinous attitude hasn't hurt us and clogged the court system, has it?!?)" are two of the worst plagues visited upon an unsuspecting public in the past 30 years. Feeding the greedy maw of slavering trial lawyers and big pharmaceutical companies has served their bottom lines but not the American public's best interest. Both should be stopped - and neither likely will. We pay a huge price for this imagined benefit though I have yet to see any credible evidence that the greater public good is helped by any of it.
4
How fitting that most of the advertising we see on Sunday talk shows and other political programming is supported mainly by the drug industry. We need to demand two things to stop this runaway investor gravy train: 1.) take away drug and medical patents or limit them to two years 2.) Take away the tax deduction for advertising and promotion by the medical complex. It is time for the entire medical complex in America to get off the greed train and start serving patients and society again.
3
Good points, with one caveat.
Ms. Rosenthal states that "...during the 1980s and ’90s, the Food and Drug Administration set some rules for medical advertising — then in its infancy — to ensure that patients got accurate, balanced information. Current regulations mandate that manufacturers... list all potential side effects and risks."
Over the years, I have had dozens of patients at high risk for heart attack and stroke refuse to take statin medications (such as lipitor) due to the litany of scary risks which they learned about from commercials (as required by the FDA).
I have no doubt that - in some instances - what the FDA calls "accurate, balanced information" listing ALL "potential side effects and risks," has led (indirectly) to considerable morbidity and mortality.
Ms. Rosenthal states that "...during the 1980s and ’90s, the Food and Drug Administration set some rules for medical advertising — then in its infancy — to ensure that patients got accurate, balanced information. Current regulations mandate that manufacturers... list all potential side effects and risks."
Over the years, I have had dozens of patients at high risk for heart attack and stroke refuse to take statin medications (such as lipitor) due to the litany of scary risks which they learned about from commercials (as required by the FDA).
I have no doubt that - in some instances - what the FDA calls "accurate, balanced information" listing ALL "potential side effects and risks," has led (indirectly) to considerable morbidity and mortality.
17
Dr. Cook, This is an earnest question: What is the difference between the risk disclosure obligations required of drug manufacturers and the risk disclosure obligations of doctors under the doctrine of informed consent. Are doctors allowed to withhold information on scary risks with a low likelihood of occurrence? Is it enough to prescribe and then leave it to the patient to read about all the risks once they've paid for the medicine?
As a Professor of Pharmacology, I conclude that this type of advertising, prohibited in the UK, should be prohibited here. If a doc has to rely on TV ads to convince his patients to take his advice, something is wrong. The major goal is to push the most expensive options while (because of the cost of the ads) increasing their price. I often note a speedup of the narrative when the possible adverse effects are glossed over. These ads rank high on my 'despicables' list.
109
"Why not heroin?" Today, consumers might reasonably wonder that, deluged by advertisements painting pretty video pictures of the promised joys and relief of pharmaceuticals with devastating potential side effects. Is it any wonder we have a heroin epidemic? Which, itself, is only the tip of the iceberg of more vast abuse, over-prescription, and dangerous multiple-prescription of pharmaceuticals.
Ban all video advertisement of controlled substances. Videos, whether on television, cable or the web, are inherently deceptive, and exploited as such. They cannot by their nature present the balance of information necessary to inform doctors and the public of available treatment options and risks.
Ban all video advertisement of controlled substances. Videos, whether on television, cable or the web, are inherently deceptive, and exploited as such. They cannot by their nature present the balance of information necessary to inform doctors and the public of available treatment options and risks.
1
Best choice I ever made was 36 years ago at age 10 - to avoid seeing or hearing ads. (20 of those 36 years, I've not even had a TV.) Obviously, I can't avoid all ads but skipping ~95% of them has been a boon to my mental health.
1
As a physician, I now get a monthly scorecard of my patients experience with my office and me. I welcome the feedback but I also see how " The patient experience" is gaining a big influence over how we deliver care. Of course, many patients do not have the background to really understand what we are doing in medicine but they now have a big voice and how we do our jobs. I doubt many people with the long educational path that physicians endure would enjoy having their work critiqued by those who really don't have the expertise to know what is actually going on. That said, the job is to alleviate suffering and if a patient's experience in the health care system is unpleasant, then we as providers need to do better.
1
This article offers a good rationale for why the federal government — i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare — should be able to negotiate drug prices. If the drug companies cannot get these "dollar per mouth" prices, they will cut their advertising budget. That's for sure. Also, when it comes to hospitals and huge clinics, perhaps insurance reimbursements should be adjusted so that patients are not indirectly paying for all of these ads. Find out what percentage of their budget goes to advertising and adjust accordingly.
2
My wife and I rarely watch TV but happened to watch a network, prime time show the other night. We were shocked by all the ads for drugs - I estimate five different drugs were being pushed during that one hour show. Who would have thought that CBS would become a drug pusher, of sorts?
This phenomenon of marketing drugs directly to the public cannot be a good thing. It implicitly is saying that your doctor is either uninformed or not acting in your best interest so you, the consumer, need to 'help' him/her in identifying the best treatment. I would suggest that if you don't trust your doctor to know what your best treatment is, perhaps you should change doctors.
This phenomenon of marketing drugs directly to the public cannot be a good thing. It implicitly is saying that your doctor is either uninformed or not acting in your best interest so you, the consumer, need to 'help' him/her in identifying the best treatment. I would suggest that if you don't trust your doctor to know what your best treatment is, perhaps you should change doctors.
As an "old-fashioned" psychiatrist who attempts to incorporate non-medication therapies like meditation,exercise and "talk therapy" with or without medications, I have found these ads annoying for years. I think of them as the butterfly drugs since one of the earlier ones was for a sleeping pill in an ad that featured butterflies. Patients would often come in asking for the butterfly drug. I knew what they meant and would explain at length why it was not a good drug for most (if any) people. Older, tried and true meds work better and have fewer side effects. I try to be patient when people insist on the drug they saw in an ad, because it angers me that the powers that I can't eradicate, are more interested in having a patient doctor shop until they find the doc who submits.
42
That was a moth, not a butterfly.
oh, pshaw! everyone knows Americans pay the very highest prices for drugs, even with the largest captive markets. We don't negotiate. Moreover, taxpayers subsidize the drugs: research, production, tests, advertising, export, and inordinately long patents.
The entire pharmaceutical industry should be nationalized under an expanded Medicare for all program.
But first -- and this is the fix for nearly every national problem -- we need campaign finance reform so big donors can't buy an all too hungry Congress.
The entire pharmaceutical industry should be nationalized under an expanded Medicare for all program.
But first -- and this is the fix for nearly every national problem -- we need campaign finance reform so big donors can't buy an all too hungry Congress.
4
We are heading towards a massive health care crisis as antibiotics lose their effectiveness through negligent overuse. This looming crisis should tell us that drugs should be prescribed more judiciously and that drug companies should repurpose the money they put towards advertising on development of new antibiotic (or alternative) treatments. We do not need a new pill for "mild unhappiness" but we will all be risking death from minor infections if something is not done soon regarding the loss of effective antibiotics.
Hey, did you ever see those gorgeous drug salespeople sitting in the doctor's office, dressed to the nines, holding an alligator sample case, waiting to pitch the drug company's wares to the doctor? Soooo good-lookin'! Those drug companies know what they're doing.
2
I remember a cartoon a few years ago, featuring a man dancing across a field of daisies and the caption "Ask your doctor if Gulliblex is right for you."
The inset punchline had him rushing into the doc's office: "Doc, is Gulliblex right for me?" "Apparently so."
The inset punchline had him rushing into the doc's office: "Doc, is Gulliblex right for me?" "Apparently so."
3
The target of drug marketing is the doctors since they have the prescription pad. This article is about the indirect influence on them through their patients
There is, of course, more direct influence on physicians. First of all there are the pushers, aka drug reps, who infest their offices. For a long time I had a PCP who made them deliver their spiel in the waiting room so I got to hear them several times. What they talked about mostly was uses for their drug that had not received FDA approval. "Ya know, Doc, Doctor Z has had very good results using A for treating M even though it hasn't received approval, yet." There was a good article about them in The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
Then there are various payments to physicians both direct and indirect.
There are conferences at fancy resorts all expenses paid with one optional lecture a day. More recently, one of my doctors remarked that whenever he travels to NY for any reason, a drug company picks up the tab.
In addition the material presented at the various lectures given by physicians is usually misleading, to say the least. A great article was published in the Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
In it one of the doctors that gave the lectures explained how the system worked and, I believe, still works.
Finally, most drugs and medical tools (e.g. MRI) were invented in public research institutions.
There is, of course, more direct influence on physicians. First of all there are the pushers, aka drug reps, who infest their offices. For a long time I had a PCP who made them deliver their spiel in the waiting room so I got to hear them several times. What they talked about mostly was uses for their drug that had not received FDA approval. "Ya know, Doc, Doctor Z has had very good results using A for treating M even though it hasn't received approval, yet." There was a good article about them in The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
Then there are various payments to physicians both direct and indirect.
There are conferences at fancy resorts all expenses paid with one optional lecture a day. More recently, one of my doctors remarked that whenever he travels to NY for any reason, a drug company picks up the tab.
In addition the material presented at the various lectures given by physicians is usually misleading, to say the least. A great article was published in the Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
In it one of the doctors that gave the lectures explained how the system worked and, I believe, still works.
Finally, most drugs and medical tools (e.g. MRI) were invented in public research institutions.
3
as a physician, I am just appalled by the sheer innuendo and misleading claims by these drug ads. The prey on the fear and ignorance of the un and mis informed
When I started, we did not need advertising...we knew who the good doctors were, which hospitals were best, and what drugs worked
now patients come in a tell us what to do? really? my 30 years of constant study are worthless?
I take liptor, it cheap and no worse then any other drug there is!
same for zanatc.....the new drugs in many case are no better at all!
When I started, we did not need advertising...we knew who the good doctors were, which hospitals were best, and what drugs worked
now patients come in a tell us what to do? really? my 30 years of constant study are worthless?
I take liptor, it cheap and no worse then any other drug there is!
same for zanatc.....the new drugs in many case are no better at all!
2
There is a simple solution for this problem and that is the banning of advertising prescription drugs.
If a doctor needs the advice of a patient to prescribe the right medication then he/she is not much of a physician and should not be in practice.
TV networks would lose revenue from the endless stream of annoying and badly produced commercials but that should not figure in anyones calculations.
If a doctor needs the advice of a patient to prescribe the right medication then he/she is not much of a physician and should not be in practice.
TV networks would lose revenue from the endless stream of annoying and badly produced commercials but that should not figure in anyones calculations.
1
The increase in this advertising should tell us all we need to know about the rising cost of healthcare and pharmaceuticals. It's the end result of a purely market driven economy - profit, profit, profit. It's a shame that healthcare is a privilege in this country.
2
The antibiotic for IBS has been a lifesaver as strict adherence to a severely restricted diet, lifestyle changes, & other meds were not successful.
I agree that there is a possibility the advertisements may bias a patient toward a treatment they may not need, It is the doctors responsibility to prescribe judiciously the correct medication. However, there are positive results from these advertisements. They are paid education by the pharmaceuticals. For the most part the ads are accurate and make the public aware of treatment options. In fact, the necessity for reporting potential side effects usually ends the ad with "and it may cause death" which scares the bejesus out of many people or in the case of Viagra and Cialis "may cause erections for over 4 hours" which intrigues other people. The other positive is that they make patients familiar with medications which they may need but may be a hard sell. For instance, Phil Mickelson hawking Enbrel has made it much easier for me (as a Rheumatologist) to convince patients that it may be the correct treatment for their Rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.
9
Dr. Lichtenstein (as a rheumatologist) should recall Dorothy Hammill skating for Vioxx. Merck failed to include in its advertising that it caused 4-5 times more heart attacks than naproxen. There are no positives for patients by allowing TV advertising of drugs. Drug companies spend more than twice on advertising than on research. The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world (and we rank 16th compared to 15 countries that have single-payer insurance) and TV advertising of drugs helps to contribute to this fiasco.
1
That "may cause erections for over 4 hours" may sound inviting may sound intriguing, but its not so much when you realize that it may be the last one you ever have.
The rise of prescription drug TV advertising has become almost silly. The endless side effects glossed over at the end are something most listeners will not be able to digest. The ads always included the phrase "Ask your doctor about XXXX", which reflects the state of the relationship between the doctor and patient, reflecting the time spent with your doctor - the 15 minute appointments - that are mandated by many hospitals and clinics. In the days of the Family Doctor, such advice would have been superfluous. Today, if you have to tell your doctor what medication to use, it is time for a more conscientious doctor. The ads seem to directed at hypochondriacs who imaging they have many of the symptoms described.
Today's medicine practice and flow of patients through the doctors office almost require that one become educated in symptoms and treatments. Thank heaven for Google, which allows one to research most symptoms uncovered in tests and the appropriate treatment, allowing on checking on your doctor's consultation. One also finds which symptoms are treatable and which ones have been described as untreatable today.
All in all, when drug advertising comes on, thank heaven for the TV remote's most valuable features, "Last Channel" and "MUTE".
Today's medicine practice and flow of patients through the doctors office almost require that one become educated in symptoms and treatments. Thank heaven for Google, which allows one to research most symptoms uncovered in tests and the appropriate treatment, allowing on checking on your doctor's consultation. One also finds which symptoms are treatable and which ones have been described as untreatable today.
All in all, when drug advertising comes on, thank heaven for the TV remote's most valuable features, "Last Channel" and "MUTE".
3
The single biggest increase in the costs of health care has been in the area of prescription drugs. That trend began when the prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies was lifted. Now drug companies spend exponentially more on advertising than they do on research. Why do they do that? Because they have seen how well their advertising money has performed for their bottom line.
Personally, I love watching those tv drug ads where the 30 second ad includes 20 seconds of disclaimers because of all the potential negative side-effects of the drugs that are being pushed.
Personally, I love watching those tv drug ads where the 30 second ad includes 20 seconds of disclaimers because of all the potential negative side-effects of the drugs that are being pushed.
10
"The single biggest increase in the costs of health care has been in the area of prescription drugs."....Need to quote your source. There is no doubt that the cost of prescriptions drugs has increased dramatically, but prescription drugs account for less than 15% of the total healthcare bill.
2
If these companies are flush enough to spend billions on ads then I think they should be cut off from any and all govt research funds. Better yet, make these ads illegal again and have them spend the $$ on R&D.
8
You need to look at the bigger picture. These ads provide a wealth of excuses for people calling in sick on Monday and Friday or for a midweek vacation. They are great for getting out of social obligations too. My favorite is the transvaginal mesh injury. With all the medication names, the boss has no clue when you say you're having a bad reaction to a drug called Projex Dedlnea and need to skip the meeting.
2
Why does the law require stating all of the side effects in the ad when the only way you can get the med is through an Rx from a Dr.? It is at that time you can be advised of side effects. The ad time on TV ads has more time spent on side effects than on the benefits of the med !! This is insane. What about this: "Tell your Dr. If you have cancer" - um doesn't it work the other way around? He/She tells me?? We need a re-look at the law to limit these medication ads. Big Pharma has so much $$ they can spend millions on an ad that immediately limits its audience by starting "...if you have already had 2 heart attacks..." Insane. FDA step up and fix this.
8
Pro-active patients today have many options to keep themselves informed. Many on-line resources provide information on everything from medical symptoms to drug side-effects. It's not for self-diagnosing purposes, but a passive patient who asks no loaded questions and only waits for their doctor to explain everything (impossible in ten minutes) is precisely what the docs prefer.
1
Another effect of those ads is that they nurture a mentality in the American public that the best way to address any health problems is a medication. Never mind that many of the conditions could be prevented or treated through dietary adjustments, herbal remedies, sleep, and exercise. It's not the pharma companies' job to point that out, of course. They're a business and are just trying to make money. But the cumulative effect of seeing constant ads for medications inculcates a belief that that's where health lies -- in more meds. On the Canadian station, the public health (yes, govt) office has ads for exercise and healthy eating.
36
Accurate comments for the most part, though your inclusion of "herbal remedies" is the exception.
Though herbal remedies need to be considered, lets not forget that they are drugs as well, and are often only poorly studied, if at all, and side effects not known. Let's not forget that that the evil side effects of FDA regulated medications were often discovered by statistical analysis by medical research. How do you know that many of the herbal remedies you refer to don't have their own batch of bad effects, when no one is looking for them?
Also don't forget that the herbal business is a huge profit making industry, which is, for the most part, entirety unregulated.
Though herbal remedies need to be considered, lets not forget that they are drugs as well, and are often only poorly studied, if at all, and side effects not known. Let's not forget that that the evil side effects of FDA regulated medications were often discovered by statistical analysis by medical research. How do you know that many of the herbal remedies you refer to don't have their own batch of bad effects, when no one is looking for them?
Also don't forget that the herbal business is a huge profit making industry, which is, for the most part, entirety unregulated.
1
Many issues that were once managed with diet and lifestyle changes or home remedies are now presented in marketing and media as diseases for which (patented, expensive) medication can be prescribed. A lot of that is the work of the pharmaceutical companies, which too often create diseases for meds, rather than the other way around. As mentioned in the article, IBS falls into this category, but so does "overactive bladder," and toenail fungus. The awful truth is that there are people who like being able to place a name on their health complaints. They like being told by a doctor that they have something. So they get the medication, or the referral for an expensive treatment, and it makes them feel cared for, and special. I can't tell you how many times I have had someone list their medical issues for me, with a gleam in their eyes. It can be a strange kind of vanity for a certain type of person.
A relative of mine who is a school teacher (in my state that means she has better health insurance than most in the private sector) loves to visit doctors. She complained to her primary care physician about toenail fungus, and was told she could either use a topical solution, or an oral drug that might damage her liver or kidneys and would require an MRI before it could be prescribed. She went for the MRI and the possible organ damage because, what the heck, her insurance was paying for it and it made her ugly toenails a Big Deal. I place a lot of blame for this on the insurers.
A relative of mine who is a school teacher (in my state that means she has better health insurance than most in the private sector) loves to visit doctors. She complained to her primary care physician about toenail fungus, and was told she could either use a topical solution, or an oral drug that might damage her liver or kidneys and would require an MRI before it could be prescribed. She went for the MRI and the possible organ damage because, what the heck, her insurance was paying for it and it made her ugly toenails a Big Deal. I place a lot of blame for this on the insurers.
1
Big pharma was never my friend. I went to medical school and residency at institutions where they were not welcome. For an ever so brief period, drug reps were allowed on base. I clearly remember this guy trying to convince me of the superior attributes of "TZDs" a class of oral drugs for diabetes. Later of course, all hell broke loose- CHF etc etc were common side effects.
Was the genie let out of the bottle when DTC advertising was legalized? Or can it be treated like cigarette advertising and some how put an end to it- at least television marketing
Was the genie let out of the bottle when DTC advertising was legalized? Or can it be treated like cigarette advertising and some how put an end to it- at least television marketing
10
While reading this story I see an adjacent ad for a $200.00 off card for Cialis, but restrained myself from clicking to finish reading the article. I wonder if it applies to 36 hour Cialis for daily use?
I have been so tempted to type up a complete list of all the pharma drug ads I see on TV/Web with a check box next to each to present to my doctor next time I see him. He can tick off all the drugs that are right for me!
Perhaps all the ads should start mentioning the side effects and ailments caused by their drug before they get to the part of the alleged cure. Oh, I keep forgetting - they have a right of Freedom to Mislead.
I have been so tempted to type up a complete list of all the pharma drug ads I see on TV/Web with a check box next to each to present to my doctor next time I see him. He can tick off all the drugs that are right for me!
Perhaps all the ads should start mentioning the side effects and ailments caused by their drug before they get to the part of the alleged cure. Oh, I keep forgetting - they have a right of Freedom to Mislead.
3
If drug advertising is really in the public interest, then we have to credit Arthur Sackler, who pioneered direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising with Oxycontin, the blockbuster opioid painkiller sold by his family's company, Perdue Pharmaceuticals. Thanks to Arthur and the gang at Perdue, we now have an opioid epidemic, including much cheaper heroin. Thanks, Arthur!
I think every dollar of ask-your-doctor ad money should be matched by another dollar into a fund for public service ads focusing on prevention, paid by the Pharma industry.
So when Grandpa huffs and puffs with his grandchildren and describes his COPD in the Symbicort ad, it could be followed by a public service segment where Grandpa tells viewers that over 50% of regular smokers will develop COPD and spend their last years struggling to breathe and maybe not see their grandkids grow up.
Now that would be in the public interest.
I think every dollar of ask-your-doctor ad money should be matched by another dollar into a fund for public service ads focusing on prevention, paid by the Pharma industry.
So when Grandpa huffs and puffs with his grandchildren and describes his COPD in the Symbicort ad, it could be followed by a public service segment where Grandpa tells viewers that over 50% of regular smokers will develop COPD and spend their last years struggling to breathe and maybe not see their grandkids grow up.
Now that would be in the public interest.
39
No other country allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise products directly to the public, who are unqualified to make the sorts of diagnoses required to determine whether the drug being hawked is appropriate for them - or useless. Big Pharma is marketing to US adults in the same way fast food and toy manufacturers market to their children - pester power. Other countries restrict the types of products and the hours during which these products can be marketed to children. Maybe the US should do the same for "ask your doctor if Advertimil is right for you"-type advertising for adults.
5
Health care has become a for profit industry. We force students to invest enormous amounts of money, cash and opportunity costs, which leads to the mind set of "the customer is always right". Denying patients requests for heavily advertised medicense and procedures is just not good business. Worse yet our educational system leaves us totally ignorant and vulnerable.
1
Just a comment, but Physcians have a world they live in. The least you ask works for them, as they have only a small amount of time allocated for you. By now, with the so called digital age, people should understand, and be able to evaluate, all the influences that are trying to sell you something. LAwyers protect Drug manufactures from FDA approved drugs that later on are found to not work. Doctors of course are in this loop but they never bring it up they just perscribe something else, hopefully evidence based that it works.
3
Any drug advertised on TV is not necessary. Do you see antibiotics, high blood pressure meds or things like that? No, you see little blue pills, drugs that turn off your immune system to avoid flaky patches of skin, and statins that 100 people need to take for 10 years, suffering muscle wasting and liver damage side effects, to MAYBE prevent one heart attack.
Eliminate drug advertising AND doctor payola from big pharma.
Eliminate drug advertising AND doctor payola from big pharma.
11
The IBS drug has been a lifesaver for me: absolutely nothing else helped, despite yearS of strict diet/lifestyle modifications.
I would vote for any candidate whose only campaign promise would be to outlaw drug commercials. That they exist tells you everything you need to know about our broken health care system.
Until then, thank God for the Mute button on my TV remote!
Until then, thank God for the Mute button on my TV remote!
164
Donald Trump says he is going to replace these ads with something really special
Fat chance of this happening.
Follow the money.
The drug industry spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress last year.
That is $145.5 million. The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 40,000 prescriptions.
Our congress sells itself cheap, compared to what they give in return.
Hillary Clinton accepted far more $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies than the rest of the 2016 field.
As Bernie Sanders points out, Pharma gives this money for a reason. Consider the recent appointment of Dr Califf to head the FDA! Talk about a fox to guard the chicken house.
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/25/fda-big-pharma-califf/
While we're doing the math, the $4.8 billion that prescription drug makers spent on advertising?
The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 1.3 million prescriptions.
On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year.
Follow the money.
The drug industry spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress last year.
That is $145.5 million. The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 40,000 prescriptions.
Our congress sells itself cheap, compared to what they give in return.
Hillary Clinton accepted far more $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies than the rest of the 2016 field.
As Bernie Sanders points out, Pharma gives this money for a reason. Consider the recent appointment of Dr Califf to head the FDA! Talk about a fox to guard the chicken house.
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/25/fda-big-pharma-califf/
While we're doing the math, the $4.8 billion that prescription drug makers spent on advertising?
The mere equivalent of one pill @ $10 x 365 days x 1.3 million prescriptions.
On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year.
For drug companies and providers the calculations are simple: Advertizing costly goods to individuals who are able to share the cost among many through insurance is a winner. Who would not want to take the gift of a shiny car that is paid not by you but the others? Free markets do NOT work where in health care. Period. That is why almost every nation forbids direct advertising. Congress should simply try to forbid it. I say try; because such a law may run afoul of the first amendment. Of course the reality is that congress will not even try because big donors are lurking everywhere. The drug companies have the money not only to advertise but to influence; using the funds they extracted from us through insurance payments.
10
If you are inclined to turn on your TV set during the wee hours because you are unable to sleep (and there's a pill for that too), you will see ad after ad for everything purveyors of remedies dream up. From toenail fungus cures to motorized scooters (for which Medicare will pay "at little or no cost to you") the ads go on and on. You may notice the increased use of terms like "ibs" (irritable bowel syndrome) and "low-T" (low testosterone). The litanies of possible side effects are as long as the ads and one wonders how some of these medications were ever approved by the FDA. These ads are often followed by ads for the services of personal injury lawyers, exhorting users of some of these very drugs to file suit if they have been injured by them. People with Medicare, in particular, have become a resource for providers of service looking for the most money they can get out of "treating" for the most possible ailments. The tail is wagging the dog, for sure.
4
I've spent 30 years making ads for great consumer brands. The pharma ads leave me scratching my head. Every one of them is exactly like all the rest. The ideas are lame. The executions annoying. The product names unpronounceable. I don't think I've ever seen one that would build any sort of real brand loyalty. I can't imagine they work. $14 billion spent, yet my professional opinion is that no one in those marketing departments knows what they're doing. It would be better if the pharma companies spent the money making the products work better.
90
I agree 1000% - especially with your last sentence! What happened to the reps that used to troll the doctors' offices and entice them with paid vacation trips etc.....? Or are they still around too? Sometimes the ads are so annoying that I record the programs instead just to be able to skip through them. And to listen to the side effects, one wonders how they can sell anything at all.
Spend the money on R & D and I will respect them more.
Spend the money on R & D and I will respect them more.
yes, and too, there is one drug ad on t.v. with the name humira,and pronounced as humera, so i scratch my head and wonder why it is not pronounced either humyra or humeera.
1
This same rationale could be applied to political campaigns. How much did the Koch brothers spend in efforts to defeat Obama?
Big Pharma has abdicated its public responsibility to serve the needs of the society with its focus on its business plan. I say no advertising to the public and spend those billions on researching cures for orphan diseases. Enough exploitation of natural monopolies. One public utility after another exploited to the detriment of the consumer. I say regulate Big Pharma like the public utility it is. Just like your local power company. They get justifiable profits but no more holding up the populace. Let Pharma boy lead the way to a sane policy on pharmaceuticals.
4
It's important to remember that medicine is first and foremost a business and what's good for business isn't necessarily good for the patient. If Big Pharma truly wants "to help patients better understand their health care and treatment options," as the industry spokeswoman asserts, then its ads would disclose, based on clinical trial data, the number needed to treat or NNT. In other words, how many people need to take a particular drug in order for one person to benefit?
2
All these new syndromes IBS, Restless Leg, Restless Arm, Shaky Toes, Daydream syndrome. Drugs for problems that don't exist.
How about changing one's diet and exercise regimen?
My favorite with these ads: side effects may include death, dismemberment, loss of kidney function, vision loss, etc etc. But all said with a really nice voice and an image of people having fun.
How about changing one's diet and exercise regimen?
My favorite with these ads: side effects may include death, dismemberment, loss of kidney function, vision loss, etc etc. But all said with a really nice voice and an image of people having fun.
33
IBS and RLS are real problems.
I've always been impressed with the drug that has possible Leukemia as a side effect. What could have wrong with you that's worse than Leukemia?
1
The only good thing about the election season is they crowd out a good number of the drug commercials. I'm sure I'll be ready to throw my shoe at the screen again by November. And could Jeep please quit playing that annoying President's Day stupid music for the ENTIRE month of February?!?
1
The levels of utter disbelief registered by all 3 of the health professionals posing the identical question on a recent visit to the ER, for a cut, to my negative response-- "are you on any medications"--was something I won't soon forget. I add 1 (you mean you don't take any medications, none at all?) and 1 and 1 together (drugstores on every corner and ads on every TV) and get that we are all well and truly medicated. I am 64 and self medicated on quarter-mile sprints and burpees.
9
Yes! I'm younger than you are, but once at a new doctor's office they asked me where I had my prescriptions filled, for their records. I told them I don't have any prescriptions and have never really thought about which pharmacy I would go to. The nurse started explaining all the different kinds of things that count as medications or prescriptions, as if I was too stupid to understand what the word meant and needed an explanation. Then she said it's very rare for someone not to be on any prescriptions. I'm not sure she ever fully believed me that I'm not on any. And you have to wonder, if that's SO uncommon, about their level of skill and knowledge in helping perfectly healthy people proactively stay health long term. If that's just not something they do very often, they can't be much help. There should be specialists who specialize in proactive prevention.
3
You encountered the skepticism that any good physician should have. Most patients over 60 take something, even if it is aspirin in a small dose and that is something that we should know about in managing even a laceration. (Your bleeding time is increased on aspirin). Often, patients don't answer truthfully until asked several times.
There are specialists who specialize in proactive prevention. They are called naturopathic physicians and are permitted to have licenses in some states. Naturopaths have a lot to offer...check them out.
I'm an American, now living in Europe, and can tell you MOST European countries do NOT allow this type of advertising. Doctors prescribe drugs; but, if there is a generic, the health care system will not pay for the brand drug. If you want the brand drug, you pay the extra yourself.
I also worked in the Pharmaceutical industry, and they make the majority of their money in the US, which has no regulations on pharmaceuticals, because they don't have National Health Care!
I also worked in the Pharmaceutical industry, and they make the majority of their money in the US, which has no regulations on pharmaceuticals, because they don't have National Health Care!
80
Hi Mareen.
Good comment. I am an American ex pat just over the Border in Canada. Canada does have provincial universal healthcare plans, so Pharma has to negoiate with a government. With that said, US advertising is broadcast on Canadian TV. The only ad's blocked are Super Bowl ad's and even that is going to change.When a drug is too expensive a government may never approve it's distribution. Universal Healthcare has one obvious downside . Rationing is a key component. It is managed in the background by Doctors prioritzing care.
Good comment. I am an American ex pat just over the Border in Canada. Canada does have provincial universal healthcare plans, so Pharma has to negoiate with a government. With that said, US advertising is broadcast on Canadian TV. The only ad's blocked are Super Bowl ad's and even that is going to change.When a drug is too expensive a government may never approve it's distribution. Universal Healthcare has one obvious downside . Rationing is a key component. It is managed in the background by Doctors prioritzing care.
1
In France, I have never seen rationing. Maybe it happens; but, I have not experienced it or witnessed it.
For instance, I have high blood pressure and a family history of heart disease. I woke up at 3am with a burning sensation in my chest. My husband to called SOS Medicine (doctors who come to your house within 20 to 30 minutes). The doctor (due to my family history sent a heart rhythm to the hospital. It was inconclusive, so they sent a team (6 people), a cardiologist and paramedics. I was taken to the hospital for further tests.
In the end, after 3 days of tests in the hospital, it was a severe gastric issue. My payment was 500 euros!
My cardiologist was contacted throughout and given all test results, etc.
As for Pharma, I only take generics from reputable companies (I ask who the company is before accepting the drug), otherwise I pay the extra for the brand drug. I would NEVER by a generic online (you have NO idea what you are getting), nor would I buy a generic made in certain countries. Having worked in Pharma, I don't TRUST the quality control in some countries.
I feel for others who don't have the info I have (my family calls me all the time); but, that is WHY there should be regulations concerning ONLINE drugs, and inspections of certain companies! However, with a Republican Congress, you will NOT be able to do this!
For instance, I have high blood pressure and a family history of heart disease. I woke up at 3am with a burning sensation in my chest. My husband to called SOS Medicine (doctors who come to your house within 20 to 30 minutes). The doctor (due to my family history sent a heart rhythm to the hospital. It was inconclusive, so they sent a team (6 people), a cardiologist and paramedics. I was taken to the hospital for further tests.
In the end, after 3 days of tests in the hospital, it was a severe gastric issue. My payment was 500 euros!
My cardiologist was contacted throughout and given all test results, etc.
As for Pharma, I only take generics from reputable companies (I ask who the company is before accepting the drug), otherwise I pay the extra for the brand drug. I would NEVER by a generic online (you have NO idea what you are getting), nor would I buy a generic made in certain countries. Having worked in Pharma, I don't TRUST the quality control in some countries.
I feel for others who don't have the info I have (my family calls me all the time); but, that is WHY there should be regulations concerning ONLINE drugs, and inspections of certain companies! However, with a Republican Congress, you will NOT be able to do this!
2
Jublia for toenail fungus? Movantik for constipation? How much does the VP for Cute Names of Expensive Drugs make? $5 million per year? It's not just the cost of advertising that drives the inflated cost of pharmaceuticals. The whole supply chain takes a piece of the action, all paid by government and consumers.
6
The writer should also note that the placebo effect is becoming much stronger in the U.S. vs the rest of the world. High-promise advertising may be causing participants in clinical trials to put more faith in ANY pill or injection. That may harm pharmaceutical companies in the long term as the results could make new meds look less efficacious.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2015/10/07/why-is-the-placebo-e...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2015/10/07/why-is-the-placebo-e...
3
Considering the dire--and presumably legally mandated--warnings of side effects which are often worse than the disease the nostrum is supposed to be treating, it's a wonder any of these medications sells at all. But then black-is-white advertising ("We raised the price to save you money!") has always been surprisingly effective in pushing a product.
4
Direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs has not has any positive effect for any patient of mine, to the best of my knowledge. Ms. Rosenthal has touched upon most of the important negative ramifications of these television, magazine, internet and billboard ads both for patients and for unbridled increases in costs to the health care system. Of course, physicians have control over what they prescribe, and any negative impacts of the ads could be contained by them. Should physicians be blamed? Any doctor will tell you that medical education now is increasingly focused on framing the doctor-patient relationship as a partnership in which patient autonomy is paramount. Also, the physician is to "first do no harm." The calculus that determines the prescribing decision when a physician is faced with a request by a patient for an expensive drug rests on these prime directives. The process of negotiation and discussion about a new drug, while conducted in the confidential, intimate setting the clinic, can indisputably be manipulated by messages from advertising. This influence can be contained by tightening the regulations on advertising in the same way that cigarette and alcohol advertisements are regulated. Undoubtedly, promulgation of such new regulations would unfortunately take an act of bravery for a politician, bravery that was lacking in the negotiations for drug pricing regulation in the Affordable Care Act.
115
what an insult to drs to have patients prescribing their own medication
were i doctor, id simple ask them which medical school they went to, then chuck them out of th office
were i doctor, id simple ask them which medical school they went to, then chuck them out of th office
I used to work in communications for the pharmaceutical industry, and when I did, I bought their premise that drug advertising was "educational." How differently I see things today, given the medical arms race the country has undergone since DTC advertising was first allowed by the FDA, I believe in 1997.
When the ads first appeared, they were somewhat innocuous and gentle, but as they have proliferated so many of them are truly disgusting. The Jubila and those IBS ads are absolutely the worst. Doctors have always complained when worried patients come in and badger of them for products they likely don't need. Take lyrica for example: it's very similar to a much cheaper generic drug gabapentin, and I could probably list cheaper choices for most of the most obnoxious ads on TV.
I think the FDA should ban them. They add nothing to the education of the consumer while adding headaches for doctors. Like anything in this country, they have become excessive and intrusive. The fact that hospitals are getting into the act seems like an open invitation for lawsuits.
Can patients sue a hospital if they are led to believe cure rates are higher than another places? Just what we need. Wouldn't we all be better off if all the money spent on advertising were directed to objective reporting of data, not some marketers' fantasy idea of how easy it is to cure toenail fungus?
When the ads first appeared, they were somewhat innocuous and gentle, but as they have proliferated so many of them are truly disgusting. The Jubila and those IBS ads are absolutely the worst. Doctors have always complained when worried patients come in and badger of them for products they likely don't need. Take lyrica for example: it's very similar to a much cheaper generic drug gabapentin, and I could probably list cheaper choices for most of the most obnoxious ads on TV.
I think the FDA should ban them. They add nothing to the education of the consumer while adding headaches for doctors. Like anything in this country, they have become excessive and intrusive. The fact that hospitals are getting into the act seems like an open invitation for lawsuits.
Can patients sue a hospital if they are led to believe cure rates are higher than another places? Just what we need. Wouldn't we all be better off if all the money spent on advertising were directed to objective reporting of data, not some marketers' fantasy idea of how easy it is to cure toenail fungus?
73
And the industry buys the doctors who prescribe by funding all expenses paid luxurious stays at conferences of dubious value in the name of professional education and exchange of information. Finally, unless the doctor prescribes, patient cannot buy the medicine. What stops Medical Associations from providing clearly worded guidelines about prescribing practices emphasizing the generics that cost much less. Obviously the industry is playing on the people with money to influence their thinking about 'what they need for their health'. So they work on both ends - doctors and patients - to drive up revenue.
1
1997? So this is another of Bill Clinton's great accomplishments? Thanks Bill.
1
This year's drug ads are parents to next year's ambulance chasing malpractice lawyer's ads.
If the drug is inappropriate the doctor should say no! On the other hand if the drug is inappropriate and the doctor or the hospital owned practice gets A kick back on every prescription, then the answer will be a resounding yes! Patient care isn't the goal MONEY IS!
The GOP and the corporatists in the Democratic party including the President and Hillary Clinton have put profit in the driver's seat when it comes to health care and they have put the FDA in the hands of corporate hacks. What do you expect! Canadians, Germans and Austrians and of course the French scratch their heads at how dumb the Americna public is. We pay for the drugs to get developed, we give the companies tax breaks and grants and when the drugs opare on the market we pay 10, 20, 30 times and up what others do.
It's time to get the oligarchy under control its killing us...literally!
GO BERNIE,
The GOP and the corporatists in the Democratic party including the President and Hillary Clinton have put profit in the driver's seat when it comes to health care and they have put the FDA in the hands of corporate hacks. What do you expect! Canadians, Germans and Austrians and of course the French scratch their heads at how dumb the Americna public is. We pay for the drugs to get developed, we give the companies tax breaks and grants and when the drugs opare on the market we pay 10, 20, 30 times and up what others do.
It's time to get the oligarchy under control its killing us...literally!
GO BERNIE,
28
I am tired of people saying physicians get "kick backs" for prescribing medications. That is the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard. First of all the doctor would lose their license, and secondly it is absolutely against the law. As a physician, I ask you please make your comments regarding health care insightful and factual. Throwing something out there to see if it sticks only promotes ignorance. Doctors NEVER get "kick backs" for writing prescriptions. That is as much of an urban legend as cow tipping.
2
@Justice Holmes,
I agree. One qualification -- often enough these medications are appropriate. They are advertised by the drug companies to compete with less expensive alternatives that a patient could use. They play on a patient's desire to get the "best" medication. So they deceive them into thinking drug A (expensive) is better than drug B (inexpensive), and the doctor may not be aware of the scope of the price difference or find it not his place to make a non-medical call over the patient's insistence.
I agree. One qualification -- often enough these medications are appropriate. They are advertised by the drug companies to compete with less expensive alternatives that a patient could use. They play on a patient's desire to get the "best" medication. So they deceive them into thinking drug A (expensive) is better than drug B (inexpensive), and the doctor may not be aware of the scope of the price difference or find it not his place to make a non-medical call over the patient's insistence.
1
Doctors don't get kickbacks anymore, thank heavens. You are blaming the wrong villain. It is the courts that have foisted this problem on us.
Best article I ever read on this topic albeit 18 years ago and satirical was Dave Barry's "Good for what ails you" http://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/dave-barry/article25...
12
This article speaks to one of the reasons that health care is such a disaster here in the US. In terms of marketing drugs and service, I have noticed a new trend. The ads sneakily push their medicaments in terms of helping patients/customers 'reach their goals'. These ads are insidious at a number of levels. First of all, if there is any goal, it should be to remain healthy. But these ads basically frame goals in terms of hitting certain numbers, for example, lowering the proportion of bad cholesterol and increasing that of good cholesterol. But since research shows that one's level of cholesterol, for instance, does not correlate in any direct manner with heart disease, to focus merely on the numbers can be a fool's errand. Moreover, the ads are manipulative in the sense that they play on people's competitive instincts. So instead of steering individuals towards the hard work of healthful exercise and diet, they promise 'winning' not in the 'old fashioned way', but by popping a pill. Their pill. A very costly pill. The ads show lots of people doing high fives, exulting that they've reached their goals. But have they actually done something to improve their health? That's anyone's guess. Only one thing is certain for sure: a gullible pool of potential patients has helped the big pharma concern or hospital reach its goal, which is a more robust bottom line.
34
I have worked in NYC for the last 30 years, +. first mostly in hospital based AIDS, now long term care.
When I worked for HIP many years ago I never liked to use the new, barely tested medicines, preferring the ones that have been around , and proven safe, for years.
I find it absurd that ads feel the need to remind patients to "tell their doctors" about specific contraindications and other health conditions , A competent and conscientious doc is obligated to ask you about other conditions so as to reduce risk of side effects when they prescribe a new med. No one cares about what drug companies do.
Do you know why turing and valeant pharmaceuticals bought out old patents and raised the prices of these meds by up to 5000%.
Because the law requires medicare and medicaid to pay essentially whatever the drug companies charge.
When I worked for HIP many years ago I never liked to use the new, barely tested medicines, preferring the ones that have been around , and proven safe, for years.
I find it absurd that ads feel the need to remind patients to "tell their doctors" about specific contraindications and other health conditions , A competent and conscientious doc is obligated to ask you about other conditions so as to reduce risk of side effects when they prescribe a new med. No one cares about what drug companies do.
Do you know why turing and valeant pharmaceuticals bought out old patents and raised the prices of these meds by up to 5000%.
Because the law requires medicare and medicaid to pay essentially whatever the drug companies charge.
38
Who can blame them, it's just corporations being corporations. Having lived in the hive once, I know. The bigger they are the more people there are who are scrambling toward the top, higher earnings, bigger bonuses, and all the other perks of feeding the trough. Meanwhile, the internal discussion is always about share holder value, which in this case, is NOT about actual patient outcomes, or medicinal efficacy. And, hand in hand with Madison Avenue, if they've discovered a way to increase market share through feeding on people's fears, hey go for it. This is the "big business" future for everything. Health care, food, clean water, clean air.
It is also interesting to note that most of the time on TV ads is spent on precautionary verbiage..."don't take Blahblahbla if you have symptoms of x, y or z, or if you're pregnant, or alive.
It is also interesting to note that most of the time on TV ads is spent on precautionary verbiage..."don't take Blahblahbla if you have symptoms of x, y or z, or if you're pregnant, or alive.
5
As a doctor, I agree that this can be problematic. Let me tell you, the advertising/marketing/sales-repping to us is ten times more prevalent and is what really drives prescriptions. Patients can request things but insurance companies will not pay if it's not medically indicated, so their requests only go so far. Finally, the author has mistakes in her article - there is no generic equivalent of Entresto, and it was shown in a major trial to slightly decrease mortality compared to generic medications. Pradaxa is similar to older generic warfarin but much easier for most patients to take and doesn't require frequent blood levels or dietary changes. These medicines do cost way too much (phamaceutical price-gouging is a big problem), but they are incremental scientific gains and the author should not misrepresent them.
4
I'm sorry Medicine resident (still in training) your comment about Entresto is very misguided and deceiving it's not a new medication at all it is just a combination of two existing generic medications that Novartis failed to find a way to repayment so combined it and present it as a new medication.
1
I'm not in training anymore and am actually a cardiologist but nytimes site won't let me change my original name no matter how hard I try. You can't buy sacubitril generically, it's proprietary and only in entresto. And it showed incremental benefit in the paradigm-hf trial http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1409077. There are criticism of this study and I'm waiting for confirmatory data, but I think you're misguided on this one.
with key lawmakers in the pockets of the industry, there's no hope for any meaningful legislation curtailing this run-away industry.
Our only hope is a wiser customer who thumbs their nose at the industry and holds out for a generic, assuming they really need the medication anyway.
Our only hope is a wiser customer who thumbs their nose at the industry and holds out for a generic, assuming they really need the medication anyway.
3
I welcome this look into these ads and only wonder why the media hasn't covered this before. Could it be that too many papers and networks depend on ad dollars and don't want to bite the hand feeding them? The real tragedy, of course, is that we are facing a coming shortage of many medications that are crucial to public health but not able to line Big Pharma's pockets the way Viagra and Cialis can.
4
Ask any conscientious practicing doctor about those endless drug ads, and he or she will probably need at least a few seconds to think up a response consisting of language that's considered acceptable in what passes for 'polite' society, even in this age of bleeped-out rappers. One thing I do have to say for that endless bombardment on the telly - at least, if you'd swallowed some dodgy substance, you probably won't need ipecac or its equivalent. Listening to the litany of often seriously dangerous side effects ought to have the same sort of effect.
Yes, I know these adverts qualify as 'free' (actually, awfully expensive) speech, but would it be too much to give the docs (and, needless to say, their oft-bamboozled patients) a break by enacting a ban on making complaints or taking license action against practitioners for merely not pushing, or having memorised the gory details of, the latest heavily-pushed product from BIg Pharma? If you ever come down with one of the many conditions targeted in these endlessly sickening TV spiels, the life saved may well be your own.
Yes, I know these adverts qualify as 'free' (actually, awfully expensive) speech, but would it be too much to give the docs (and, needless to say, their oft-bamboozled patients) a break by enacting a ban on making complaints or taking license action against practitioners for merely not pushing, or having memorised the gory details of, the latest heavily-pushed product from BIg Pharma? If you ever come down with one of the many conditions targeted in these endlessly sickening TV spiels, the life saved may well be your own.
3
15 billion is another example of low hanging fruit in healthcare spending excess which does nothing at all for the health and well-being of the public. on the hospital side, every $ of marketing takes away corresponding budgeted dollars for patient education, registered nurse staffing, and direct hours of patient care across disciplines. Those, not surprisingly, affect how high the mortality rates are.
There is no "business" of healthcare to licensed healing professionals. Until the public realizes this and demands that for-profit business be banned from the provision of healthcare, business as usual will continue to inflict entirely preventable suffering, harm and death.
There is no "business" of healthcare to licensed healing professionals. Until the public realizes this and demands that for-profit business be banned from the provision of healthcare, business as usual will continue to inflict entirely preventable suffering, harm and death.
14
Not only can opioid induced constipation be treated with much less expensive drugs, in most cases prophylactic treatment with inexpensive over-the-counter drugs such colace and senna can prevent it. Unfortunately, few physicians bother to tell patients about these when they start patients on long-term opioids. And, of course, AstraZenica has no intention of educating the docs or the patients. And isn't it interesting how none of those adds for hospitals ever bother to mention preventive care.
That all these ads pretend they are actually trying to educate the public rather than simply trying to sell a product is the greatest crime. One would laugh if a car advertisement said that buying one was for the sake of your health and not to the financial benefit of the dealer or
That all these ads pretend they are actually trying to educate the public rather than simply trying to sell a product is the greatest crime. One would laugh if a car advertisement said that buying one was for the sake of your health and not to the financial benefit of the dealer or
12
Or?
I know what happened, but cars are advertised for guys to feel more virile. You will feel powerful and attract beautiful women if you buy this car. No one seems to laugh at that. Weird.
I know what happened, but cars are advertised for guys to feel more virile. You will feel powerful and attract beautiful women if you buy this car. No one seems to laugh at that. Weird.
1
A good example of supply increases demand....
1
Whenever I listen to litany of potential side effects for all of these advertised drugs, I am convinced by that alone that this information belongs in the hands of doctors.
103
I agree. Whenever I hear "may cause death or other serious side effects" in that calm voice...
1
Perhaps this is over-simplified logic but; if advertised drugs are good at what they "cure", then doctors and patients would seek them out. Think penicillin or aspirin. Perhaps marketing is merely a way to accelerate societal knowledge… but I am skeptical.
Do these drugs as advertised by pharmaceutical corporations only kind of work only? It certainly seems the drugs come with a long list of nasty side effects that we read or hear about as a fast voice over at the end of a TV ad? No wonder there are so many late night lawyer ads - "Have you or a loved one been injured after taking the drug _______" Once a drug fails risk-reward, Big Pharma abandons it and makes another one.
This develop-market-abandon process seems a vicious cycle that is seriously damaging people. America needs to get away from its "silver bullet" approach where one "magic medical pill" might fix your illness (but of course, these new problems result).
After reading this article I'm glad I try to be as naturopathic as feasible. I'll take an anti-biotic after a doctor's visit to help with a severe cold, and I use the medical community for stitches and general diagnosis check ups but other than that… the TV ad campaigns by Big Pharma are scary. I research any drugs before I would consider using one.
If some Americans can mindlessly vote for Trump; they must be willing to believe a drug can make them perfectly healthy with no side effects. This is America's health care system?
Do these drugs as advertised by pharmaceutical corporations only kind of work only? It certainly seems the drugs come with a long list of nasty side effects that we read or hear about as a fast voice over at the end of a TV ad? No wonder there are so many late night lawyer ads - "Have you or a loved one been injured after taking the drug _______" Once a drug fails risk-reward, Big Pharma abandons it and makes another one.
This develop-market-abandon process seems a vicious cycle that is seriously damaging people. America needs to get away from its "silver bullet" approach where one "magic medical pill" might fix your illness (but of course, these new problems result).
After reading this article I'm glad I try to be as naturopathic as feasible. I'll take an anti-biotic after a doctor's visit to help with a severe cold, and I use the medical community for stitches and general diagnosis check ups but other than that… the TV ad campaigns by Big Pharma are scary. I research any drugs before I would consider using one.
If some Americans can mindlessly vote for Trump; they must be willing to believe a drug can make them perfectly healthy with no side effects. This is America's health care system?
"It certainly seems the drugs come with a long list of nasty side effects that we read or hear about as a fast voice over at the end of a TV ad?".....If you were to read the same list of side effects for something like aspirin it would be quite similar and would include "internal bleeding and sometimes death have been reported." Further there is a reason why prescription drugs require the signature of a qualified medical professional. The bottom line is your doctor is responsible for prescribing your drugs, whether they are appropriate or not.
1
Why are you taking an antibiotic "to help with a severe cold," I wonder. Antibiotics counter bacteria. Colds are caused by a virus.
Drug advertising is irritating. With a background of music, the clinical problem is
described, the side effects are stated, but the price is not mentioned. About two
minutes of drivel., with the caution to speak to your doctor. Medical professionals
have information from drug companies reduced, as drug representatives have been reduced. In the case of cancers, agents have become complex and
expensive. The National Cancer Comprehensive Network ( N.C.C.N.) is the
expert source for the newest and best choices for treatment of cancers, but
the costs are not given. It rather ironic that a drug like thalidomide which has
been around the past fifty years, still costs about $3,000/month.
Underlying the cost of these new drugs is the fact that Big Pharma is being
controlled by Wall Street.
described, the side effects are stated, but the price is not mentioned. About two
minutes of drivel., with the caution to speak to your doctor. Medical professionals
have information from drug companies reduced, as drug representatives have been reduced. In the case of cancers, agents have become complex and
expensive. The National Cancer Comprehensive Network ( N.C.C.N.) is the
expert source for the newest and best choices for treatment of cancers, but
the costs are not given. It rather ironic that a drug like thalidomide which has
been around the past fifty years, still costs about $3,000/month.
Underlying the cost of these new drugs is the fact that Big Pharma is being
controlled by Wall Street.
1
These ads are aimed at those for whom cost is never a concern, people who would never consider buying the store brand at a supermarket because they assume it must be inferior to the more expensive brand name product. Because pharmaceutical companies devote so much time, energy and money to ensuring their loyalty, doctors prescribe the brand name rather than the generic drug if a patient specifically asks for it. It's just one factor in the U.S. health-care system, which is significantly more expensive and dramatically inferior to that of similarly wealthy countries.
2
Similarly, ads for "Free" knee or neck braces are really paid for by Medicare.... By insulating the patient from cost, the bill instead goes to all of us!
Listening to the list of side effects should chill anyone interested in such drugs.
2
Pharma is the cigarette of the 21st century. Pharmaceutical advertising to consumers should be illegal, and so should the sleazy marketing tactics employed to convince doctors to prescribe expensive drugs—including sending physically attractive pharma reps to take doctors out to expensive dinners, tracking their prescriptions with computer programs, and stopping by for a visit with gifts, dinners and sweet persuasion if the tracked doctors aren't prescribing enough of a certain brand. Expense is the least of it....many of these meds have very serious side effects, including cancer, incurable infections and, of course, death. As a medication gets closer to losing its patent, marketing departments get desperate to sell as much as possible, widening the circle of potential consumers by testing it for even more conditions it might possibly help, even the teeniest bit, while visiting a host of awful, sometimes permanent side effects on patients. If a med is just the slightest bit more effective than a placebo—placebos don't have side effects and don't kill people, keep in mind—they'll market the heck out of its supposed "efficacy" while downplaying its dangers. Pharmaceutical advertising has taken over the marketing industry to such an extent that nearly all the job openings in advertising now are for pharma. And since I refuse to work on pharma, my income has shrunk year after year as I find less and less non-pharma freelance work available.
13
In the iconic movie "Silence of the Lambs" made 25 years ago, imprisoned maniac Hannibal Lecter remarks in one key scene that when he "causes any trouble", a TV--ordered by the head of the asylum planted just outside his glass-walled
cell--blasts continuous religious programming, which Lecter hates, so he can't relax or even sleep.
Today it would be drug commercials.
I live in southern Florida, one of the greatest concentrations of old, almost dying and actually dying people in the country. It's like a private hunting preserve for Big Pharma, the prey trapped in their homes watching commercial TV (network or cable, no difference), the predator drug companies greedily rolling out their endless supply of intensely irritating commercials.
Acoustic guitar music, waves breaking over rocks, tranquil dog walks, gardening, grandparents somehow engaging adorable grand kids, everyone smiling, smiling, always smiling...it doesn't really matter, as long as the viewer's distracted from the rapidly spoken list, required by law to be read aloud, of life-threatening side effects, often truly frightening, while the "carefree patients" continue whatever "fun" activities the promo depicts. Notwithstanding the bizarre, manipulative, even obscene juxtaposition of selling some expensive poison (although cost is rarely mentioned) to "treat" some malady or condition already covered by other, far cheaper generics, these commercials are ubiquitous, like flies on roadkill. Please, ban them!
cell--blasts continuous religious programming, which Lecter hates, so he can't relax or even sleep.
Today it would be drug commercials.
I live in southern Florida, one of the greatest concentrations of old, almost dying and actually dying people in the country. It's like a private hunting preserve for Big Pharma, the prey trapped in their homes watching commercial TV (network or cable, no difference), the predator drug companies greedily rolling out their endless supply of intensely irritating commercials.
Acoustic guitar music, waves breaking over rocks, tranquil dog walks, gardening, grandparents somehow engaging adorable grand kids, everyone smiling, smiling, always smiling...it doesn't really matter, as long as the viewer's distracted from the rapidly spoken list, required by law to be read aloud, of life-threatening side effects, often truly frightening, while the "carefree patients" continue whatever "fun" activities the promo depicts. Notwithstanding the bizarre, manipulative, even obscene juxtaposition of selling some expensive poison (although cost is rarely mentioned) to "treat" some malady or condition already covered by other, far cheaper generics, these commercials are ubiquitous, like flies on roadkill. Please, ban them!
7
I am a cardiologist. I spend 15-45 mins with each patient. Most patients don't want the expensive drugs that are advertised. Given time, they understand that the doctor knows them best, and naturally more than the profiteering drug companies.
However, THANK YOU pharmaceutical companies for your research and development! In those few instances that we determine the need, and prescribe one of the advertised drugs, they help tremendously. Furthermore, it has NEVER been the expensive advertisement that has triggered that prescription.
The insurance (mal)coverage is repeated rubber stamped denials that I and my office staff must deal with before getting them approved, cost (not need) being the ONLY obvious reason for denial. Clearly, the insurance companies don't feel that we know what is best for the patient, so deny covering the needed medications. The ACA has increased this type of denial.
The system of open advertising of a product to which the public has limited access (except surprisingly my medicaid patients) and available only through the obstacle course of doctor's visits and insurance denial letters and high copays, is a ridiculous effort to keep the cost of health care down, if that is even the true effort being made by our leaders.
Clearly pockets are still being lined for shareholders, executives and elected officials offices, and the support our patients receive for their God-given right to health care is no better than it was before direct to consumer ads.
However, THANK YOU pharmaceutical companies for your research and development! In those few instances that we determine the need, and prescribe one of the advertised drugs, they help tremendously. Furthermore, it has NEVER been the expensive advertisement that has triggered that prescription.
The insurance (mal)coverage is repeated rubber stamped denials that I and my office staff must deal with before getting them approved, cost (not need) being the ONLY obvious reason for denial. Clearly, the insurance companies don't feel that we know what is best for the patient, so deny covering the needed medications. The ACA has increased this type of denial.
The system of open advertising of a product to which the public has limited access (except surprisingly my medicaid patients) and available only through the obstacle course of doctor's visits and insurance denial letters and high copays, is a ridiculous effort to keep the cost of health care down, if that is even the true effort being made by our leaders.
Clearly pockets are still being lined for shareholders, executives and elected officials offices, and the support our patients receive for their God-given right to health care is no better than it was before direct to consumer ads.
4
The ACA, the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical manufacturers are all doing us in financially.
For years I took Oxycontin for my Neuropathy. It is expensive and the cost put me into the Medicare donut hole by mid year. It was coming out of patent a few years ago and I looked forward to saving some money. Instead Purdue, the manufacturer introduced a new version that was less likely to be abused. I've no argument with that but then they paid generic manufacturers $10MM not to make it. Last year BCBS reduced how much I could use. They saved $120 a month I paid the same co-pay and needed a prescription for generic Percocet to cover the hours lost. This year they took Oxycontin out of the formulary. My co-pay jumped to $80 from $40. The Percocet went from $6 to $40. I was moved to Morphine. It's less effective but BCBS now only pays $8.92 and I pay $40. The cost to them for the Percocet is 66 cents for 60 tablets. I am paying 61 times more for it than they are and 4.5 times more for the Morphine than they are.
In one year I went from $30 in co-pays to $80 and only by compromising a working regimen.
Opiate use destroys a man's ability to produce testosterone. BCBS will pay for Androgel ($360 a month) for me but cannot pay for a compounded form because of federal regulations. So I pay the $80 out of pocket every month.
BCBS says they lost $500MM treating ACA patients because they are only signing up with pre-existng conditions and many aren't paying the premiums.
For years I took Oxycontin for my Neuropathy. It is expensive and the cost put me into the Medicare donut hole by mid year. It was coming out of patent a few years ago and I looked forward to saving some money. Instead Purdue, the manufacturer introduced a new version that was less likely to be abused. I've no argument with that but then they paid generic manufacturers $10MM not to make it. Last year BCBS reduced how much I could use. They saved $120 a month I paid the same co-pay and needed a prescription for generic Percocet to cover the hours lost. This year they took Oxycontin out of the formulary. My co-pay jumped to $80 from $40. The Percocet went from $6 to $40. I was moved to Morphine. It's less effective but BCBS now only pays $8.92 and I pay $40. The cost to them for the Percocet is 66 cents for 60 tablets. I am paying 61 times more for it than they are and 4.5 times more for the Morphine than they are.
In one year I went from $30 in co-pays to $80 and only by compromising a working regimen.
Opiate use destroys a man's ability to produce testosterone. BCBS will pay for Androgel ($360 a month) for me but cannot pay for a compounded form because of federal regulations. So I pay the $80 out of pocket every month.
BCBS says they lost $500MM treating ACA patients because they are only signing up with pre-existng conditions and many aren't paying the premiums.
This type of ad, with the repetitive mantra "ask your doctor..."
Is soooo annoying that if I do not mute the TV I would love throwing it through the window!
Is soooo annoying that if I do not mute the TV I would love throwing it through the window!
2
There was a time when doctors learned about the latest medications in medical school and their residency.
Now, is seems that we patients must ask our doctors if this pill is right for us.
Do the drug companies think doctor's don't know which medicines to prescribe to us?
Or, are drug companies just going with the flow in The Dumbing Down of America.
Now, is seems that we patients must ask our doctors if this pill is right for us.
Do the drug companies think doctor's don't know which medicines to prescribe to us?
Or, are drug companies just going with the flow in The Dumbing Down of America.
1
Doctords aren't up on what these drugs do. When my lack of teststerone was discovered at my annual physical I was sent for a MRI scan of my pituitary under anesthesia since I cannot lie still for one. I was fine. My wife went on line and discovered that he cause was the opiates I take, a well known cause for decades.
Six years ago I became very depressed, something very unlike me. I generally operate on the principle that "Stuff happens. Deal with it". Again my wife checked online and the cause turned out to be the Gabapentin I'd been prescribed. We stopped it and I was OK within weeks.
By the way, Gabapentin is way over-prescribed for a number of ailments off label. It has paid 100s of millions in fines by the FDA and is being sued by insurance companies for the costs it has generated in medical care.
Don't rely on your doctor to know what you are being prescribed really does to you. Check it out yourself before filling that prescription.
Six years ago I became very depressed, something very unlike me. I generally operate on the principle that "Stuff happens. Deal with it". Again my wife checked online and the cause turned out to be the Gabapentin I'd been prescribed. We stopped it and I was OK within weeks.
By the way, Gabapentin is way over-prescribed for a number of ailments off label. It has paid 100s of millions in fines by the FDA and is being sued by insurance companies for the costs it has generated in medical care.
Don't rely on your doctor to know what you are being prescribed really does to you. Check it out yourself before filling that prescription.
Monetized in the exam room. So trickle up is working nicely I see.
Sometimes advertising backfires. I have had a number of patients with COPD stop using their Advair because, during the litany of side effects quickly stated, they heard that it might cause pneumonia. The real problem is that they just stopped using the medication and didn't tell me about it until they came in for their regular check-up. I can address concerns and fears and I can switch medications if need be, but only if the patient tells me they have stopped the medication.
72
It is no coincidence that this practice is only allowed in two nations globally: USA and New Zealand.
Inane capitalism to the detriment of the consumer; us....where have we heard this before?
Like with current political attack-adds, the corporate media feasts on the revenues while there is absolutely NO public benefit.
THe AMA should be on the front line against these aghast practices.
Inane capitalism to the detriment of the consumer; us....where have we heard this before?
Like with current political attack-adds, the corporate media feasts on the revenues while there is absolutely NO public benefit.
THe AMA should be on the front line against these aghast practices.
21
And when big Pharma is criticized for that market's singular high costs as compared to the rest of the world, they justify that exorbitance by the high cost of development. The interminable string of commercials for blood-thinners, diabetes fixes, and toe-nail fungus cures are all part of that "development." Ask your doctor.
3
The FDA should, and could, ban all advertisement of prescription medications.
35
No they can't, though they would love to. It's illegal to ban the ads. Thank the courts.
" It's illegal to ban the ads. Thank the courts."
Yet hard liquor and cigarettes cannot be advertised?
Yet hard liquor and cigarettes cannot be advertised?
1
I have never been able to understand why drug companies should be allowed to advertise. For one thing, it obviously adds cost to drug prices. Beyond this concern, however, is my amazement that any person would need to tell their doctor about a new drug. If you need to do that, you are getting treated by the wrong physician. I much rather see well trained physicians and more r & d and let's leave Mad Men out of it.
286
thanks, shellys46!
1
They are allowed to advertise because the courts have ruled that advertisements are a form of "speech". Prohibiting advertisements would be denying them their first amendment freedom of speech. Since corporations have been granted "personhood" by the same courts.
2
Advertising and promotion, along with research and development, are tax write-offs. VERY lucrative.
2
If you think that's bad, take a look at drug reps bringing in free lunch (as though there were such a thing) into clinics.
The Physicians Assistants, who can prescribe, listen to the sales talks, while eating the lunches and they actually believe the sales pitches from salespeople who probably learned medicine from the drug companies. I know because I see our clinic patients on the latest sales rep product.
It is diabetes meds that are pushed, probably because there is a surge of diabetes patients, hence a growing market of consumers. I see patients in the very early stages of diabetes who should be on only one simple medication, but prescribed more than one brand new drug by the Physicians Assistance and, yup, these are the products they got sold on while treated to lunch.
Me, I take medical refresher courses by signing up for review sessions run by university based departments of medicine. The lecturers are physicians who begin by stating they have no conflicts of interest. On the subject of diabetes, they find no advantage in prescribing the new, untried and very expensive meds .
The Physicians Assistants, who can prescribe, listen to the sales talks, while eating the lunches and they actually believe the sales pitches from salespeople who probably learned medicine from the drug companies. I know because I see our clinic patients on the latest sales rep product.
It is diabetes meds that are pushed, probably because there is a surge of diabetes patients, hence a growing market of consumers. I see patients in the very early stages of diabetes who should be on only one simple medication, but prescribed more than one brand new drug by the Physicians Assistance and, yup, these are the products they got sold on while treated to lunch.
Me, I take medical refresher courses by signing up for review sessions run by university based departments of medicine. The lecturers are physicians who begin by stating they have no conflicts of interest. On the subject of diabetes, they find no advantage in prescribing the new, untried and very expensive meds .
21
Thanks for an excellent article. This important problem, unlike most, is easily remedied: we must part ways with New Zealand and join the rest of the world in disallowing these ads.
It's also important to understand that free drug samples at the doctor's office are usually a false economy. They are only available for expensive new products that may be no better than long-established generic alternatives. (Remember, "the first one is always free".) The one-two punch of "ask your doctor" ads, coupled with free samples to appease the askers, is brilliant marketing that drives up the cost of health care for all of us.
It's also important to understand that free drug samples at the doctor's office are usually a false economy. They are only available for expensive new products that may be no better than long-established generic alternatives. (Remember, "the first one is always free".) The one-two punch of "ask your doctor" ads, coupled with free samples to appease the askers, is brilliant marketing that drives up the cost of health care for all of us.
12
When my physician recommended a new cholesterol lowering drug at the cost of $1800 a month, I declined. In fact, I am going off most medications, with the exception of a daily baby aspirin and can say that this is the best I have felt in years. When I see that drug being advertised on TV, I just laugh and eat an apple.
15
I am sick to death of these ads!! I vote with my remote when they come on. I will not watch shows that constantly promote the Cialis, Viagra, etc ads. I am not against any of the drugs, just don't force me to watch them over and over.
1
It seems unfair to compare hospital advertising to drug advertising. Patients at a hospital are probably charged about the same no matter which hospital they are admitted to in the same geographic area. They go for generally necessary reasons, carefully monitored by insurance companies and Medicare and Medical for medical necessity, with costs negotiated and reimbursement tightly controlled. Drug advertising on the other hand can often lead to unnecessary prescribing of drugs that could easily be substituted with lesser cost agents, or prescribing of drugs that are not necessary at all. And by the way, the number three hospital for neurosurgery in New York City is probably still one of the best in the country and you would be lucky to be there if the need arose.
Patients admitted to a hospital are probably charged about the SAME??????Google price differencesform hospital care and check the facts.
1
Just read the other articles in this seies to see how wrong you are.
"The health care industry spent $14 billion on advertising in 2014"
"The United State and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow consumer advertising for drugs."
Sounds like the FDA needs to reinstate the ban, plain and simple.
Then all that misused money could go toward developing better drugs, or making them less expensive to patients.
"The United State and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow consumer advertising for drugs."
Sounds like the FDA needs to reinstate the ban, plain and simple.
Then all that misused money could go toward developing better drugs, or making them less expensive to patients.
4
As I watch pharmaceutical advertisements I listen very carefully to the downsides, and some of them are really appalling. I would have to be very ill. indeed, that they would be worth the risk. Fortunately, I am not, so it's academic. I find the advertisements unpersuasive, overall, especially something like Jublia, which promotes itself for a harmless cosmetic situation.
Tea tree oil. Even my dermatologist "prescribes" it for toenail fungus.
1
The worst side effects of these ads will be a nation of hypochondriacs ( or at least the TV watching portion of it ) they are awful and should be regulated like cigarette or alcohol advertising in my opinion.
1
A simple rule: never agree to take a drug that is advertised on television or in glossy magazines (or the NY Times).
3
So watching a 30 second pitch filled with hopeful music, happy people, and flashy graphics "helps people make a good decision" about their health care.
Even in this world of attention spans about equal to those of a grapefruit, this hardly qualifies for in-depth understanding of one's health condition and medical options.
But it must work or Big Pharma wouldn't spend $14B a year that they could better use to do more research or drop drug prices.
Even in this world of attention spans about equal to those of a grapefruit, this hardly qualifies for in-depth understanding of one's health condition and medical options.
But it must work or Big Pharma wouldn't spend $14B a year that they could better use to do more research or drop drug prices.
1
We never should have allowed this type of advertising. Spend your money at the grocer, not the pharmacy.
5
The FDA should require that advertisements for prescription medications ought include:
1. A clear (not rushed) list of known risks of the medication;
2. A statement of the rate at which results match the ideal described in the ad.
3. The average cost of the medication to the consumer (including cost to insurer);
4. Whether there is a comparable generic and what the average cost of that generic is;
With all of the talk about health care costs and concern for patients, it is disgraceful that such disclosure is not mandated.
1. A clear (not rushed) list of known risks of the medication;
2. A statement of the rate at which results match the ideal described in the ad.
3. The average cost of the medication to the consumer (including cost to insurer);
4. Whether there is a comparable generic and what the average cost of that generic is;
With all of the talk about health care costs and concern for patients, it is disgraceful that such disclosure is not mandated.
4
Or simply ban these ads altogether. That would be the healthy thing to do.
6
While I am in favor of price competition in Plan D medicare your suggestions are well taken and could be introduced even without the non-price competition rules of medicare D and the general industry. Good points!
Big Pharma is one of the most profitable businesses out there.
Them, and their main peddlers, are out to make clients, not cured people. These include the doctors who will go to conventions to promote a drug, while taking a lot of cash from Big Pharma for their cooperation.
None of them are out to cure you, they just want you to spend your money in their product.
About time we made the advertisement of drugs illegal in our country.
Them, and their main peddlers, are out to make clients, not cured people. These include the doctors who will go to conventions to promote a drug, while taking a lot of cash from Big Pharma for their cooperation.
None of them are out to cure you, they just want you to spend your money in their product.
About time we made the advertisement of drugs illegal in our country.
8
It is outrageous that these ads are allowed. As was noted, there exist much less expensive alternatives for almost all of the drugs mentioned. These ads are only meant to drive demand and hence increased sales and drug company profits. They are not meant to educate the public. They should be banned as should ads for hospitals. In terms of the latter, many publications do surveys and rate the institutions which are accessible to the public. Why advertise? Again, profits are the driving force.
44
The way that Physicians treat patients as children is part of this problem.
I have some medical training. I bailed out of pre-med as requiring too much memorization for my taste, for Physics, and Math; which requires less. I later worked as a biostatistician in medical research, some of it on drug trials.
Even I find it difficult to engage Doctors in a discussion of my diagnosis and treatment. I understand that 1-1 education takes time which insurance companies will not pay for, and that managed care demands generics not expensive, newly promoted, drugs.
As a consequence patients may think they are not getting the best care, and
to be fair more of this is now on the shoulders of the Insurance companies that effectively practice medicine without a license, than Physicians.
Personally I prefer generics, because I know, first hand, the drug safety trials really happen when the drug is finally approved for general use. If Doctors would explain this to people, it would help.
All drugs are used on a risk vs efficacy basis. Doctors need to explain this tradeoff. There just isn't "a pill for that".
I have some medical training. I bailed out of pre-med as requiring too much memorization for my taste, for Physics, and Math; which requires less. I later worked as a biostatistician in medical research, some of it on drug trials.
Even I find it difficult to engage Doctors in a discussion of my diagnosis and treatment. I understand that 1-1 education takes time which insurance companies will not pay for, and that managed care demands generics not expensive, newly promoted, drugs.
As a consequence patients may think they are not getting the best care, and
to be fair more of this is now on the shoulders of the Insurance companies that effectively practice medicine without a license, than Physicians.
Personally I prefer generics, because I know, first hand, the drug safety trials really happen when the drug is finally approved for general use. If Doctors would explain this to people, it would help.
All drugs are used on a risk vs efficacy basis. Doctors need to explain this tradeoff. There just isn't "a pill for that".
3
Let's stop pretending that healthcare is a free market already. The laws of economics don't apply here. Healthcare providers control the supply of healthcare, while also acting as trusted advisors on the demand for healthcare. This is a major distortion of the "free" market. It's too easy for healthcare providers to overtreat in order to increase profits. Keep in mind, the CEOs of large healthcare companies were hired by investors and can be fired by investors. Your health is not what investors measure at the end of each quarter.
I don't believe healthcare is not a right, but it should be a responsibility of government just like national security.
I don't believe healthcare is not a right, but it should be a responsibility of government just like national security.
6
Who ever pretended healthcare is a free market? If it were, I could bill whatever I wanted for patients and expect to be paid. Not so.
.
These drug ads are getting more twisted all the time. I swear some of them are designed to induce psychosomatic illnesses subliminally.
What ever happened to restless leg syndrome anyway?
Weed is so much less expensive, works well, is natural and we don't have to subsidize all this disgusting advertising.
These drug ads are getting more twisted all the time. I swear some of them are designed to induce psychosomatic illnesses subliminally.
What ever happened to restless leg syndrome anyway?
Weed is so much less expensive, works well, is natural and we don't have to subsidize all this disgusting advertising.
3
Ads for medications are annoying and demeaning. Worse yet, they exploit the under-informed and the sick. They will probably not be banned given our current regulations, but we can protest with our mute buttons.
Hopefully the AMA will continue to push for eliminating these horrifying ads, but money and profit are at the core so it will no doubt continue. But the bottom line is that they work which means 'we the people' need to get educated about our medical problems and the best inexpensive treatments. Popping pills is not always the best or cheapest answer. I think the AMA should provide a handout for every doctor that talks about this issue. It is a sick situation!!
Hopefully the AMA will continue to push for eliminating these horrifying ads, but money and profit are at the core so it will no doubt continue. But the bottom line is that they work which means 'we the people' need to get educated about our medical problems and the best inexpensive treatments. Popping pills is not always the best or cheapest answer. I think the AMA should provide a handout for every doctor that talks about this issue. It is a sick situation!!
31
We have become hustlers in white coats.
12
Speak for yourself.
1
As someone who spent a career in advertising but left before the advent of prescription drug commercials, I am amazed by them (as well as repelled and bored).
A typical TV spot briefly promotes the benefits of the drug, then spends far more time (legally mandated) listing all the possible side effects, often up to and including DEATH.
The commercials must work, or there wouldn't be so many of them. But if I were told that fact in advance, I wouldn't have believed it.
A typical TV spot briefly promotes the benefits of the drug, then spends far more time (legally mandated) listing all the possible side effects, often up to and including DEATH.
The commercials must work, or there wouldn't be so many of them. But if I were told that fact in advance, I wouldn't have believed it.
4
As a pharmacist for many years, I am very much opposed to drug companies promoting these new and expensive drugs when alternatives, which have been used for many years, have been proven to be both safe and effective. For example, warfarin or Coumadin has been a reliable blood thinner for generations and it is cheap. It is true that you have to have your blood checked regularly, but would one want to pay hundreds of dollars for these new thinners just for convenience?......Also, concerning that " rapid fire litany of all the things that could go wrong" I feel that they should not show people laughing and dancing while stating these dire possible side effects but if it may cause nausea, show someone vomiting, if death is possible, show someone laid out.
8
Brilliant and much needed focus, article and title. Thank you!
8
It is a disgrace and shame that direct to consumer advertising is allowed in our country. We are one of two countries that allow this evil practice which does not serve any purpose to the welfare of the patients. The other country is New Zealand where they have socialized medicine. In an essence, the ads don't make a difference there. The practice creates an atmosphere of disease mongering among us. Some people get influenced by the disease mongering strategy resulting in inappropriate use of drugs generating huge profit for the makers (profit range 10%-40%). Pharma, as slick they are, investing heavily in TV and other media ads touting that they help the patients. Actually, studies have shown that return on investment from ads can be as high as 50 times more sale than baseline. Kudos to the American Medical Association for taking the leadership role in proposing to ban the evil practice.
Our legislators are dependent upon bankrolling by pharma to get elected and as a result, pharma has blocked any potential passing of a law banning it. The primary force to support them is the Grand No Party and they do it in the name of capitalism. Of course, we know the real truth behind the support. The money machine supported by the Pharma gets a guaranteed commitment from them to continue looting. The mantra is profit before people. As a result, one out of four cannot afford to pay for prescriptions affecting nation's health severely.
Our legislators are dependent upon bankrolling by pharma to get elected and as a result, pharma has blocked any potential passing of a law banning it. The primary force to support them is the Grand No Party and they do it in the name of capitalism. Of course, we know the real truth behind the support. The money machine supported by the Pharma gets a guaranteed commitment from them to continue looting. The mantra is profit before people. As a result, one out of four cannot afford to pay for prescriptions affecting nation's health severely.
8
I wonder sometimes how effective those ads are after hearing the long list of side effects that often include "...sometimes ending in death." Isn't that what we're all trying to avoid?
Thanks for an eye-opening expose.
Thanks for an eye-opening expose.
5
I agree with most of this. Advertising of pricy drugs provides close to zero useful information for patients. With respect to Enbrel, I can say from over thirty years experience with rheumatoid arthritis, about 15 before and 15 after Enbrel's introduction, that for me, and no doubt many other patients there are are no satisfactory low cost medications that will stop the progression of the disease like Enbrel can. I believe In my case, early introduction of a drug like Enbrel , had it been available, would have prevented some painful and crippling deformities. But nothing justifies the price- gouging in which its manufacturer engages.
2
Take something as simple as eye drops. Once you bought eye drops for sore dry eyes. But someone saw a great opportunity here, or were scared by more creative competition. Now the same company that formerly held the market with one solution is forced to defend its monopoly by offering eye drops - in different vials - for dry eyes, pink eye, and it seems, for green eyes, blue eyes, cross eyes and probably glass eyes too.
We now live in a society that denies the legitimacy of old age even though Big Pharma, as this article pointed out, feeds its greedy underbelly on the steady income it provides. Madison Avenue, despite the grotesque results, legitimises with sheer marketing overkill the obsession with youth and body image. 8 billion dollars is spent in the U.S. every year on cosmetics (most left to dry up in the back of a drawer) and 10 billion on plastic surgery.
It all feeds the corporate interests' coffers. It starves the people of self-esteem because they can never be satisfied. Of course, that is the point.
Consumerism is the new religion and profit its golden idol. Until it isn't.
Western culture now is corporate/consumer culture, digging its own grave.
We now live in a society that denies the legitimacy of old age even though Big Pharma, as this article pointed out, feeds its greedy underbelly on the steady income it provides. Madison Avenue, despite the grotesque results, legitimises with sheer marketing overkill the obsession with youth and body image. 8 billion dollars is spent in the U.S. every year on cosmetics (most left to dry up in the back of a drawer) and 10 billion on plastic surgery.
It all feeds the corporate interests' coffers. It starves the people of self-esteem because they can never be satisfied. Of course, that is the point.
Consumerism is the new religion and profit its golden idol. Until it isn't.
Western culture now is corporate/consumer culture, digging its own grave.
1
Oh, and if you ask your doctor about one of these drugs and he or she produces a "starter kit" in a fancy box to get your started, you'll know he's in on the take.
4
Has anyone ever tried reading the small print at the bottom of the screen that rapidly disappears when the ad is shown?
Anyone who takes any medication without checking on the side effects and discussing them with the doctor is asking for problems.
Anyone who takes any medication without checking on the side effects and discussing them with the doctor is asking for problems.
4
I notice something else about healthcare/pharm commercials.
Diabetics, heart patients, asthmatics, name the disease sufferer, none of them hobble slowly on walkers, use oxygen, or even appear the least bit poor or ill.
Erstwhile sufferers are always shown out prancing around the park, or flinging the Frisbee at the beach, or touring some scenic village in a convertible.
The methods of modern advertising put Allardyce T. Meriweather to shame.
"Our pill doesn't only cure you!
It makes you wealthy, successful, and in social demand."
Diabetics, heart patients, asthmatics, name the disease sufferer, none of them hobble slowly on walkers, use oxygen, or even appear the least bit poor or ill.
Erstwhile sufferers are always shown out prancing around the park, or flinging the Frisbee at the beach, or touring some scenic village in a convertible.
The methods of modern advertising put Allardyce T. Meriweather to shame.
"Our pill doesn't only cure you!
It makes you wealthy, successful, and in social demand."
30
The ads are accompanied by either sentimental or beautiful nature images that successfully distract you from the list of dangers. I envision a future of obituaries reading "The patient was cured of (choose disease), but died of the 43 side effects."
3
The fact that we allow such advertising is yet another contributing factor to the humongous 17-18% of GDP that the US expends on health care vis-a-vis the 8-11% of our advanced industrial competitors. How any country can rationally expect to compete in a globalized economy while paying as much as 100% more for the same service, and not coming close to covering everyone, is beyond me.
But at least the pharmaceutical and advertising industries are making out like bandits...
But at least the pharmaceutical and advertising industries are making out like bandits...
91
If the number in the article of advertising spending, $4.8 billion, is correct, then it is 0.16% of the total spend on healthcare in the US (currently $3 trillion). So, yes, it is a contributing factor, but, no, not a meaningful one.
While the US does not achieve the same metrics as European healthcare systems, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest our system is inferior. Most metrics in health outcomes research focus on lifetime health, which will be impacted by the proportion of un- or under-insured Americans. When you look at end of life or heroic care, however, we have a better system and better outcomes. Part of that is access to, yes, expensive drugs, and part of it is that treatment decisions are not being constantly costed out, as in single payer models.
So it comes down to a few questions. First, do you accept that some will not be insured as a trade off for better high-end care, and, second, do you accept a higher cost of care, even if some cannot afford it, to gain access to cutting edge medicine. I say "yes" to both. Healthcare is a service, not a right.
While the US does not achieve the same metrics as European healthcare systems, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest our system is inferior. Most metrics in health outcomes research focus on lifetime health, which will be impacted by the proportion of un- or under-insured Americans. When you look at end of life or heroic care, however, we have a better system and better outcomes. Part of that is access to, yes, expensive drugs, and part of it is that treatment decisions are not being constantly costed out, as in single payer models.
So it comes down to a few questions. First, do you accept that some will not be insured as a trade off for better high-end care, and, second, do you accept a higher cost of care, even if some cannot afford it, to gain access to cutting edge medicine. I say "yes" to both. Healthcare is a service, not a right.
To me, this is the most telling line in this piece, "...but if a patient asks, the doctor is more likely to prescribe it." The question is, why? If we can't trust our physicians to prescribe the most efficacious and reasonably priced drugs, if they are so easily manipulated by advertising and by patients, then the medical community is truly in dire straits.
193
If Doctors don't keep patients they get fired. So you want good patient reviews? Give 'em what they want.
6
I think a lot of it is the patients, particularly older patients, that think they need a certain treatment and if one doctor won't give it to them they will find one that will. This kind of pushes doctors to give more deference to patients than they otherwise would. The issue as I see it is there should not be direct to consumer advertising, at visual advertising which often bares little relevance to the drugs being advertised, because it makes people want treatments they don't need and/or overpriced treatments.
2
Good point Clyde. Ads work through repetition (and a cute and sometimes disturbing intestine cartoon). I wonder how much the repetitiveness of the ads on doctors too and by the patients asking their doctors drowns out the doctor's recall of the better (lower cost) drug option to use? It is easier to recall Tylenol after a Tylenol ad or if a patient just finished mentioning Tylenol; so a doctor may say "have two Tylenol and call me in the morning" than "have two Acetaminophen and call me in the morning".
It's an old story, of course and anyone who has taken a marketing class knows this approach as 'pull' advertising (as opposed to 'push.')
Yes it does work and it is purely in the interest of the drug companies. This sort of advertising should never have been allowed and I'd guess our 'dear departed' Justice Scalia played a critical role in making/keeping it legal.
So we, as a nation, need to allow President Obama to fill that vacant seat. It may be our only hope.
Yes it does work and it is purely in the interest of the drug companies. This sort of advertising should never have been allowed and I'd guess our 'dear departed' Justice Scalia played a critical role in making/keeping it legal.
So we, as a nation, need to allow President Obama to fill that vacant seat. It may be our only hope.
150
It might help....years down the road. A shorter way might be to elect a congress that would act to ban these prescription drug ads from TV.
11
Did you see who Obama recently appointed to the FDA. He is a friend of big Pharma not the consumers.
4