It is unfortunate that our elected officials represent corporations, not the people that voted for them. Health “care” in the US is more expensive than all the civilized countries that have single payer and we rank last in quality, outcomes and access. The grip of the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies on our elections is analogous to the NRA. It is a travesty.
32
Now you're worried about direct to consumer drug advertising?
We knew this was wrong even recently, but when Republican politicians caved to lobbying by Big Pharma (and mega-buck donations) the game was up...no-one gave a second thought to the well being of consumers.
It's a no brainer for them because they're already into the half-century campaign to convert medicine, and health care generally, from a calling and a service to a profit center. Now, it's all about the cash.
Feel good, "We Care" advertising and promotional items don't mask the lust for profit that drives every health care decision.
These are not simply commercials to sell a particular brand; they're "push" marketing, specifically designed to raise formerly non-existent fears among patients and sending them begging to their doctors for relief. Its mind-control lite, and it perverts the practice of medicine.
It makes no sense when corporations and their well paid advocates fall into "advertising is good for patients, and does a service by keeping doctors informed". What? You mean lavish tropical seminars, free lunches, pens, note books, mouse pads, travel mugs don't do the trick? Hot young reps dropping by the office?
It's bad enough being lied to by Big Pharma, and health insurance cartels, but its embarrassing when they think they don't even have to try to hide it.
Its worse when the "Blackish" of the world betray their audience and call it a public service.
12
Every drug ad should be required to spend at least half of the ad time clearly stating how the disease can be prevented (if it is a preventable disease). The most advertised drugs are for easily preventable problems such as GERD, erectile dysfunction, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Easily prevented, YES, because each of these problems are diet and exercise related. We could dramatically reduce our total medical costs with a wholesale campaign to improve our hideous American diet. We can "nudge" people to change from diets which directly cause CAD, diabetes, GI problems, cancer, and yes even erectile dysfunction to diets which prevent all of the above. We have engineered our food for taste and increased sales. We can thus engineer our food for taste and health. This is Public Health 101 and all of our chronic diseases can be dramatically reduced with well placed economic and cultural "nudging." We have done this with car safety, seatbelts and helmets, positioning babies when sleeping, awareness of STDs, flu shots, etc. It's not creating a "nanny" state.....rather, it would create a sane environment where the health of our citizens is more valuable than corporate profit.
11
What??? So if I understand correctly, Blackish producers actually collaborated with Novo Nordisk about this episode re: diabetes...with the actor initially 'trying out' a natural remedy, the remedy ultimately failing, and the moral being that one should 'listen to their (Western) doctors and just take whatever prescriptions they prescribe'? And in between all this, the very episode had Novo Nordisk commercials peppered throughout? Do I have that right? If so, that is disgusting.
Medicines are not things that should be 'marketed' in the same manner as other items to be bought with our disposable income or for our 'leisure time'. There's nothing 'bright and cheery' about medicines or the people who need them. Yet, the commercials are always full of flowers and balloons and puppy dogs and smiling faces all around. And, oh yeah, in between all those perfect images, are the litany of 'potential side effects'.
Yet another example of what a perverted country we have become.
18
What's wrong with advertising directly to consumers since we aren't allowed to even buy these drugs directly? We have to go beg for permission from our doctors. Why do we even need prescriptions? People wrongly assume that our system is designed to protect consumers from themselves. That system is what is keeping prices high. Everything should be over the counter and then there would be no reason to complain about drug advertising.
3
Oh yea, "everything" should be over the counter without having to "beg for permission from our doctors". Who on earth needs a doctor to begin with?
Opioids, blood pressure lowering meds, statins, etc., etc, next to the chewing gum and we all can use our free will and decide who many to pills to pop while chasing them with a couple of glasses of Red Bull with Vodka.
Great suggestion, bigly! Heck, and finally we get rid of all TV ads for all that is sold in the U.S. of A. "over the counter", including cars and toilet paper.
2
The medications being directly marketed to consumers are for chronic conditions, which can perhaps be controlled, but not cured. The idea is to get patients "hooked" on a drug long-term.
It is much like the days when teenagers were the targets of cigarette commercials.
Many of these chronic diseases are simply the result of poor diets and living habits. It would seem that simple preventive approaches would go a long way.
Alas, medicine, marketing, and money make for a bad mix. The medical-pharmaceutical complex (which dwarfs the military-industrial complex) is incentivized to diagnose and sustain chronic disease.
We get the world we deserve.
(Free advice to avoid diabetes: Don't eat out; Don't eat anything that comes pre-packaged in paper or plastic; Don't eat processed foods.)
5
Are you claiming diabetes is a hoax?
4
No. It is an epidemic.
But adult-onset, type II (as opposed to insulin-dependent juvenile type I), is primarily the result of diet. And since it has reached epidemic proportions, the pharmaceutical industry wants to capitalize on it.
We certainly don't see the drug companies lobbying for a huge sugar tax.
11
The worst is the ad for an RX to
treat
Opioid Induced Constipation !
the drug companies CAUSED the problem they push the drugs to treat.
Drug companies have the politicians bought and paid for
21
I have to agree. Not only is everyone falling all over themselves to solve the opioid crisis, but now they're pushing pills to help deal with the side effects of this crisis. When the perception was that opioid abuse was confined to persons of color, there sure was no "crisis" and no rush to get prescription laxatives on the market.
And yes, I am a white woman. I take opioids for cancer pain.
5
Thank God for these commercials.
The info isn’t rocket science and your doctor learns about the new meds through advertising, too.
Should we remain ignorant of the drugs we take and place all our faith in the physician? I say not.
The reason drug prices are so high is because the US is the only country that invests the billions necessary to discover new drugs. THAT is rocket science.
I would be very proud if my childrengrew up to be pharmaceutical researchers.
These jobs, by the way, are the high paying tech/STEM jobs everyone wants for America. They also help anchor the middle class so at risk.
2
This would be nice if it were true, but it's not. The info that is rocket science--the side effects, cautions, etc.--are delivered after the pretty pictures, in a monotone, at a decibel level much below the rest of the commercial, and at rocket speed. I frequently have trouble understanding what they're talking about, even thought I'm familiar with the product. Doctors learn about new drugs from professional journals and meetings, from representatives, and communications from the companies, not from TV. Same way they always did.
And not all drugs have been developed in the US, nor are the people who develop them all American. As to prices, they most often represent profit for the producer, not the costs of development, even granting that the development costs of new drugs are quite high.
As to your children, I heartily agree with your wish to see them in the pharmaceutical industry--or even in the university labs where most drug development starts, frequently with NIH money--your taxes in action.
9
"The reason drug prices are so high is because the US is the only country that invests the billions necessary to discover new drugs."
I don't think so. To begin with it is not the US that invests the billions, but the drug companies. Hence they want a big payback for their investment. Don't you remember the refrain that the private sector could do this better than the government? I think that you should also take a look at those "high paying tech/STEM jobs everyone wants." The high-paying jobs are management, not the grunts that do the lab work. Big Pharma squeezes it workers just like every other big corporation.
7
If your doctor learns about new meds through advertising, esp. TV advertising, you need to get a new doctor!
I learn about medications through much more controlled venues: continuing medical education, journals, universities, etc. Although drug companies are not entirely absent from some of these venues also, speakers/educators are mandated to disclose who is sponsoring them, whether any information they give is not proven (off-label, not FDA-approved, etc.), and there is sometimes an educated audience to ask questions, ask for proof, etc.
As a medical student, I was told by my pharmacy professor and later by mentors I respected to be extremely careful about information from drug companies. Later, the medical groups I worked for banned drug reps. Starting from residency, I've made a personal vow to avoid as many drug-sponsored events as possible. You will not find drug-company "swag" near me.
I also have multiple friends who work in the pharma industry; while I respect their work, even they recognize that a lot of pharma's dollars are spent on advertising/ marketing, not R and D. Drug companies often swoop in AFTER much of the R and D has been conducted at taxpayer expense at universities. Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid!
19
“one-quarter of adult patients who visited their physician after seeing” a commercial “received a new diagnosis of a condition,”
How many of those conditions really existed, and how many are just proof of the power of suggestion? I was shocked when I began seeing commercials for prescription drugs. "Ask your [specialist in whatever] about our really expensive new drug that does just about what older, much cheaper ones do. By the way, your doctor knows about the new one, because the drug company mails him brochures, sends reps to visit him and invites him to "information sessions" with nice dinners and lots of drinks.
15
Type 2 diabetes can at least sometimes be reversed by a ketogenic diet. It’s not easy, but possible.
4
This advertising should be banned. It raises prices and encourages over use of more expensive drugs.
27
You should only watch shows like this on the DVR and skip the commercials. You'll live longer. Ask your doctor.
21
As long as we are on the subject of advertisements. I try to listen to MSNBC or CNN on my Sirius XM. The advertisements seem "designed" by someone to make you change the station. Loud, with Grating noises, Car Horns, Banging, Announcers shouting at you, repeating phone numbers over and over, Garbled quintuple speed, absolutely annoying, disclaimers that are impossible to understand.
What happened to a simple message that you can comfortably listen to,
especially at night?
8
TV is becoming more of a higher payment wasteland! And now we're inundated with commercials for prescription drugs, many of whose side effects can result in death! Will it get any more macabre?!
7
How much has prescription drug advertising contributed to the opioid epidemic? To the over-use and misuse of antibiotics? To the over-medication of children for ordinary childhood behavior? The 1997 law was a terrible mistake, and a first step in the present debasement of government to serve corporate ends. Prescription drug advertising to the general public should be banned asap.
27
"How much has prescription drug advertising contributed to the opioid epidemic?".....You cannot get a prescription for an opioid drug without the signature of an M.D. M.D.s have had many years of training and are paid very well for their knowledge and expertise.
2
Physicians, being people, are not immune to advertising. Also, studies have shown that physicians are easily influenced by favors from pharmaceutical companies.
6
Yes, we can't get a prescrip for an opiod without an M.D.'s signature, which seem to be up for grabs to the highest (pharma) bidders. There's a reason why there are now some systems in place that track doctors and how many painkiller meds they are prescribing, and to whom. Doctors were prescribing them far too easily. Have a headache? 'Here's a prescription for valium.' Have a sniffle? 'Here's a prescription for some antibiotics'. We wouldn't have the opioid problem we do, without some irresponsible 'knowledgeable, expert' doctors.
3
Two OECD countries allow direct to consumer marketing for prescription medication, the US and New Zealand. One of these countries has universal health care and a centralised pricing regulator. Guess which one?
14
OK, I'll play: guess which one has a minuscule opioid problem compared with the profit-addicted 'free market' in the US?
oooh..maybe I said too much?
6
Perhaps it should be required that bankruptcy be listed as a potential side effect, too.
Ha ha.
19
Cheese and RICE! This is why I have adblocker. Your graphic is making me physically SICK! Stop pushing that convulsive!
Seriously, the effect took hold from the front page fold, not this MUCH more disturbing dose. Just stopped in to warn the physician the dose is far to strong.
4
Bwa ha ha ha ha.
I don't see any of those commercials, because I don't watch network TV, or cable. I recently discovered Netflix and Amazon prime so I dull my brain with binge watching UK sitcoms and war documentaries, and I am starting to get bored with that.
Kill your TV.
16
"I’m not going to stop watching 'black-ish,' but could we stick to the show, people?" Did you just fall off the turnip truck, Danny? Selling advertising is what TV shows are all about!
7
According to the CDC, 91% of Americans aged 65 and over are taking a prescription drug. 69% for ages 45 to 64. For all ages, it's 47%. That means 153 Million people are on prescription drugs out of a total population of 325 Million. 41% of people aged 65 and over are taking 5 or more prescription drugs. Those are staggering numbers. (Health United States, CDC, Table 79)
The advertising appears to be working and TV sitcoms are the perfect medium for a pharmaceutical sales pitch. The viewers are likely to be sedentary people who are looking for a magic potion to cure their maladies. A majority of the people who watch sitcoms are not interested in adjustments to their diet and a regimen of vigorous exercise.
A herculean effort will be required to break the strangle hold of the medical industrial complex. I am not expecting that to happen soon.
8
You make some very interesting observations. You're right...those more likely to watch weekly sitcoms are also likely 'couch potato' types... don't exercise, don't eat healthily, drive their cars everywhere (can't walk three blocks to the store!), etc. And overall, they are probably less educated, and therefore less likely to question their own doctors, do their own research on health remedies, consider the mind/body connection, try out relaxation techniques, etc. So yeah, grabbing a pill is far too easy for such people.
3
I've stopped watching TV because of all the commercials, especially those related to drugs. You also see a ton of ads in magazines. Too much money spent on advertising driving drug costs up. I don't need to know all that information. My doctor will inform me of what I need and together we'll decide upon a treatment. And maybe it won't involve drugs.
9
"I’m not going to stop watching 'black-ish'"
And that's where the advertisers stopped listening to you. Your only power here is to deny them your attention. If you're not going to exercise that power, then they have no reason to stop advertising.
18
I have been an MD for 47 years, and have watched pharma turn from an honorable business into a meretricious one. This kind of stuff is odious.
By the end of my solo practice [two years ago] I was ever more horrified and frustrated by drug prices and ads - and this from one who was writing prescriptions for generics whenever possible for decades!
Their arrogance, guile, and cupidity are amazing and appalling.
36
What's the exact downside to the drug ads from your view?
1
I am completely in favor of people being actively involved in their health care including the use and/or choice of pharmaceuticals. But advertisements by drug manufacturers is not the proper way to educate the public on their health choices. While that job lies mostly with health care providers, the danger here is that they also become biased by drug reps and various perks given out by drug companies trying to influence doctors. The fact is, it is incumbent upon us, the patients, to be smart about all healthcare choices. Fortunately there are many unbiased resources on the Internet to tap into. This obviates the argument from Pharma about ads - that they are educating the public. But we really don't need their so-called educating - it is all available on-line.
5
I assume (perhaps wrongly but I think not) that my doctor is best suited to decide which medications I might need. It’s obvious that the flood of prescription drug infomercials that dominate the television are solely designed to stimulate demand for the drugs by the consumer, not doctors.
Try watching any program that has a viewing audience that is 35 years old or more. If you can find one that is free of drug commercials, it’s a bloody miracle.
5
This statement really is outrageous and unacceptable: “One of the things we felt was important was it needed to be natural and it needed to tell his story, but it also needed to be medically accurate,” said David Moore, a senior vice president at Novo Nordisk. “We had individuals from our medical affairs really review the script . . .".
Having the senior vice president at Novo Nordisk seemingly supervising what is supposed to be fictional show, "black-ish", means that the program is nothing more than an hour-long commercial dressed up as a sitcom. The greed of the top brass at ABC have a lot to answer for because I suspect that they were "incentivised" to permit this advertisement for Novo Nordisk.
Americans, for the most part, seem blissfully unaware of how very much they are being ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry. For example, an analgesic gel, diclofenac, that costs $17 off the shelf in Canada, costs $120 in the US and requires a prescription. While diclofenac tablets may require a prescription because of adverse side effects to the digestive system, requiring a prescription for the gel is nothing more than greed on the part of the pharmaceutical company that makes it. Doctors are not without blame in the obscene plundering of the public by an entire industry--they have done little to correct this situation. And we sit by passively while we, especially the sickest among us, are robbed blind because we need pharmaceutical products.
20
On the other hand, a tv show that unintentionally included medically inaccurate information might prove harmful if a viewer took the content as literally true. Diabetes is a huge and growing problem and there is already more than enough misinformation about it circulating.
As a writer of fiction (and an editor of medical educational content that is used to train physicians on the ins-and-outs of new drugs), I strive to make sure that even fictional content is 100% accurate where it counts. I can make up a lot of details, but science is science.
Did the show mention that getting in control of one's weight can cure diabetes in some cases?
1
“A chance to live longer.” Yep, for tens or hundred of thousands of dollars we have drugs that can potentially give you a few more days or weeks of life, Just ask your doctor. Now, with the discount coupon, you can buy brand name Rx Nexium for $160ish instead of the retail $270. Of course, you can buy Nexium 24 OTC for under $30. My concern is we are bankrupting the country with substandard healthcare. Everyone (consumers included) have their hands in the til and no one wants to take a chance on sacrificing their gains for everyone’s good. Everything about this system is broken and this is just one facet.
10
As soon as a "Ask Your Doctor " commercial comes on I switch channels ! Our Big Pharm industry & their price gouging & in many cases are the pay or die business model! This VERY clearly shows the VERY dark side of Capitalism at it's worst & how money buys political votes to enable this greed & legalized corruption that other countries avoid !!
11
And advertising by Big Pharma is only the roots of the huge corrupt tree. The largest limbs are the McKesson's that are dumping opiods directly to the street criminals with full knowledge of their criminal activity.
2
Zostavax was the end all, cure all for shingles. Terry Bradshaw and the government told us so. Now, we have a new shingles vaccine and are hearing how ineffective Zostavax really was (so now we need Shingrix). Hmmmm...
9
Two other aspects irritate me about drug commercials. When we hear the list of complications toward the end, the speaker rattles them off at a very quick tempo, and for some drugs the list ends with: "and death." Yes, that is a rather important complication. And also, another phrase toward the end: "Ask you doctor about ..." Does this really work? Are doctors so gullible that they actually diagnose a condition or write a prescription because the patient heard an ad on television? These ads should be outlawed!
9
When doctors choose a medication for their patients, there are many factors in play. Patient preference is definitely one of them. So yes, direct-to-consumer advertising makes a difference.
2
And some of the commercials have a person with a cheery voice who lists the side effects. Creepy.
1
Newsworthy in its detail, but in another way it's sort of like a shocking expose revealing that Donald Trump's hair isn't natural. Watch I, Robot and look for the gratuitous shots of the car grill. Or Sex and the City for the pan of the shoe brand. Especially as the Netflixes, Hulus, and other services proliferate, we'll see more, not less of this. For ABC, owned by Disney, to express reservations, is the response of the PR wing doing its job.
If you want to understand how a Trump could get elected, start with the US' incremental yet relentless divestment in public media. A recent Stanford study showed how already-murky lines between ads and content have further blurred. Mission accomplished for advertisers, TV executives, investors, politicians, Russian bots, etc.
4
There is the true drug problem in the USA, and it is the crux of our healthcare problem, because no longer is healthcare about curing. It is about medicating. About "turning on" the patient to being a devoted user.
More often than not, physicians have closets full of "samples" for us all to try.
Like they say, the first one is free, baby. Then you're theirs.
For life.
Healthcare is about profit.
6
“lI don’t know about a drug company’s collaborating on a sitcom script...”. It’s simple to know. “I don’t know about a political party collaborating on a sitcom script”... Or how about, “I don’t know about a third party who preys on the vulnerable (and we don’t know who they are) collaborating on a sitcom script”? What is not to know???
2
I'm going to stop watching Black-ish. Sure, it's inconsequential, one family in protest, but $6 billion a year in advertising? During an Opioid epidemic? Where is the list of politicians paid off by Big Pharma? Too many to list?
8
I live in Europe, where TV commercials for prescription and non-prescription drugs are banned. The last time I was in the US, I watched television with my elderly mother, and the difference was astonishing. The incessant commercials for drugs made me wonder whether everybody in the US is truly sick, or whether the drug companies are only trying to convince them that they're sick.
20
It's some of both. There are new treatments for minor complaints, and drug companies try to drive patients into their offices to receive official diagnoses so they can take the drug (dry eye, restless leg, ED) and there are new treatments that conservative doctors may be reticent to try (immuno-oncology drugs). Informed patients are better patients.
2
I mute or fast forward drug commercials in silent but ineffective protest over expensive tv ads for drugs. I also tear drug ads out of magazines before reading their content. Both accomplish nothing but release some of the anger I feel about the situation.
6
A side effect of practically all of the drugs advertised on TV, which is never mentioned, is that you will do everything in slow motion. You will put on your active wear, smile contentedly, and do go about your life at about half speed.
Washing the dog, swinging a golf club, high-fiving after bowling the winning strike, gardening. I'm surprised that these drug commercial actors (or are they really on the drugs?) don't fall over from their bicycles for lack of forward momentum.
5
You nailed it ! Don't forget the picnic lunches featuring garden salad.
Ten years ago, it was Jarvik and his fradulent advertising for Lipitor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/25cnd-pfizer.html
"One television ad depicted Dr. Jarvik as an accomplished rower gliding across a mountain lake, but the ad used a body double for the doctor, who apparently does not row."
4
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that change in drug advertising policy, and the current state of our most expensive medical system in the world.
6
The article mentions the FDA changed the rules to allow drug advertising in 1997. Didn't President Reagan leave office in the late 1980's?
2
? Not sure about Reagan being responsible for DTC, although he could've paved the way. Bill Clinton was president in 1997 when DTC advertising was approved, although who knows what deviousness was afoot in Congress at the time.
1
The drug advertisements by Pharma are annoying and cause immediate "muting" to await the ongoing programming. On occasion when you do listen it is questionable why anyone would take the drug with all the side-effects and warnings! I rely on medical professionals to suggest whatever drugs to take and certainly not any advertisements. Besides, I do not even trust Pharma in any case. Suggest eliminating all drug advertising and big Pharma invests those funds in research!
4
I have discovered a nifty trick --- Ignore the visuals on these drug ads. Avert your eyes and just listen to the audio as they riff through the list of warnings that the pretty pictures are supposed to distract you from. It's a much more realistic experience that way.
3
I don't know which is worse, drug ads or the ones seeking people for drug trials.
2
WIthout drug trials, there will be no new medicines. Not all new drugs are frivolous--there are ongoing breakthroughs in cancer drugs, for instance. They can't be approved until they are tried in patients, a process that is heavily regulated for safety and has very strict protocols.
3
And without fail, the guinea pigs are almost always poor or marginalized people in our society. Those who can't pay for their medical condition or are without health insurance. Sometimes they even use prisoners for drug trials. Nice.
2
When advertising and plot line are integrated it's time to stop watching the show, Mr. Hakim.
5
Has anyone looked a the wonderful, glossy advertisements produced for prescribing doctors in free medical journals?
What about the lavish cruises, dinners, and free drugs the manufacturers give to doctors?
Once a doc prescribes an expensive name brand, she/he has no time or incentive to learn if it is effective, or a generic is available
3
One can solve the problem of too many drug commercials on television by simply stop watching TV or getting rid of the TV altogether. That is what I did after years of growing weary of seeing a never-ending stream of commercials about medications, cars, career colleges, cell phones, and the like. That was in 2004 and I haven't watched TV since. I don't have Netflix or cable, and I don't stream either. Why? Because it was not just the unending line of commercials that drove me to leave TV, I also found TV boring. Most of what was on, and in my opinion, is still on, television, is just junk to get audience attention, thus ratings = advertising dollars. There are plenty of things to serve as a replacement for television, such as reading, taking walks, catching up with friends, etc. I recently deleted my Facebook account because I was wasting too much time and because of too many ads. Content providers need ads and commercials to generate money to pay their bills, but do those commercials have to so long and frequent that it makes it difficult to follow a story or program? Unobtrusive ads are probalby fine, but I believe that most of what is on TV and online gets in the way of usability.
7
Amen, TV the internet is nothing but a never ending buy this product, tell your doctor about this pill. It is exhausting. So the only way to escape this never ending assault on your mind is to turn off your commercial TV , internet and your cell phone for hours on end. The program is not worth the continual assault on ones mind. Even PBS because of lack of funding is another gateway to buy this.
ENOUGH already, these companies are bleeding the American people. We have made the decision to not be involved in this advertising mania that is taking place. its not worth it. When I am home trying to have peace and family time I don't want this Madison Avenue nonsense in my house. There is no cure for cancer, there is no cure for dementia and I don't want to hear the lies.
5
Also difficult to fathom is why pharmaceutical companies are given tax breaks for advertising.
46
More and more paid infomercials and advertising are tucked into TV, films and even newspapers-gasp! Sometimes it's obvious, (press releases) and other times it is more sneaky. Speaking of, recently there was a big article here about going on a Disney Cruise. Coincidence? I suspect not. My comment was censored when I made this suggestion or correlation.
11
I take your point but if you had read that artricle about the Disney cruise you would have been pretty sure it had not been cleared by the Disney PR people.
1
Right but it sure got a lot of people thinking and talking more about Disney Cruises did it not? It's subliminal.
2
I have long felt that allowing commercials for prescription drugs was a terrible terrible idea. I really wish that this was not permitted.
51
Big Pharma is an amoral enterprise centered NOT on patients' well being, but solely on their own profit margins. There will no longer be any cures for diseases, because there is no economic advantage in it for them. Curing cancer, or diabetes, or RA would put a serious dent in the bottom line, and they won't have that! Instead, like with AIDS, the focus will be on keeping you chronically ill but managed with their crazy expensive drugs. With cancer, they offer drugs that won't cure you, but may give you a couple of more months, for which they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars per course. So families ruin themselves financially, because no one wants to lose a loved one. & the doctors, seduced by the army of Pharmatutes the companies send around to whore their products, are more than happy to write the scripts, so they can go on free Big Pharma sponsored trips to the Caribbean to play golf. The whole system is rotten from top to bottom.
15
There have been rumours that cancer and other disease cures (or pathways to) have been bought up by large pharma companies. Like the oil companies did with other engine alternatives back in the day. Big business hates competition.
5
would you decline cancer treatment because you know the drugs won't cure you or are you just making the point that all us cancer patients are just wasting our time with drug treatment
Like I always say:
There is no money in a cure
5
Great comments and anecdotes all around. Let's not forget that we urinate a large percentage of the drugs that we consume. Every news outlet has reported on this, and it is so prevalent that we risk poisoning our food supply or stunting some fish, birds, and other animals.
16
The drugs also make it into the water supply in very small but worrying concentrations. No home water filters have been tested for effectiveness on filtering out this stuff.
5
Disgusting! America, the home of the free? Really?
5
If you want to see an amazingly endless collection of prescription drug ads, try MSNBC's news shows- including Rachel Maddow. What Rachel ought to investigate, since she likes investigating and does a good job of it, is the prevalence and cost to consumers of those prescription drug ads that pay for her show. And isn't it about time for prescription drug ads to be banned from TV?
25
It is unconscionable that we allow drug companies to sell their products to consumers. If I were a doctor and and a patient came in saying "i saw a commercial and I was wondering if I need humira I'd give them a prescription that said 'No more TV.'
22
The healthcare lobby is the largest briber of politicians in the United States, spending billions every year to influence government agencies. Add the next 3 lobbies together, including defense contractors and the N.R.A., and you don't get even close to the amount that pharmaceutical and medial device manufacturers spend in the name of greed.
The F.D.A. left its morals and ethics behind under pressure by politicians in the late 90s. The result? The most drug addicted and over prescribed population in our history, and the most drug dependent nation in the world.
Thanks, government! You sold us down the river without the proverbial paddle. Here's hoping you and the drug pushing manufacturers get a heaping dose of karma much sooner than later.
27
The NAR spends more lobbying Congress than the NRA. The National Rifle Association is not a big spender.
2
"Companies spend more than $6 billion a year on this kind of advertising, according to Kantar Media."
But guess who in the end pays for all those awful commercials?
11
Talk about the ultimate product placement. Entertainment has been going down this road for a while, where specific products or brands are pictured or otherwise tied in to a television show or movie. The era we live in of extreme medicalization of our lives was bound to lead to this. The star of the show should be embarrassed, though. He is entertaining not with corporation-free humor, but with something that is doing double duty lining his pockets. And the manufacturer weighing in on the script? We are being had on all levels, and programmed in more ways than one.
10
Why do we need doctors to prescribe when the ads tell us what we need? This is self-medication by doctor intimidation.
Scrip drugs should not be advertised. period. Big pharma is creating our drug needs and their money world just like NRA creates our need for flesh reaming weapons.
37
Not doctor intimidation but doctor BRIBERY.
3
Just a thought: You could stop watching TV and go for a walk every day - or twice a day. Maybe then you won't get diabetes or high blood pressure and you certainly won't have to watch stupid drug commercials. Just listening to those lists of side effects will give you some of those side effects.
14
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease. All the walks in the world won't prevent it.
6
I'm 69 and occasionally watch the evening news on one of the Fresno, CA, TV channels. Seniors must be the only people who watch these programs, judging by the advertisements - it's one pharmaceutical ad after another, with an occasional cut to a car crash news item. We get a "Here's what's coming up" teaser, then cut to three commercials. Then 30 seconds of "news" followed by more commercials. It's relentless. It's the main reason I don't watch more than a few hours of TV in a year. You'd have to be brain-dead to put up with this on a daily basis. Ugh!
45
I fled TV because Big Pharma was shoving their products down our throats, now YouTube is doing the same.
When an American President takes on Big Pharma and a couple of other organized groups of blood suckers, then we will be marching toward the light.
Is it this dark in hell?
18
After closely following the drug DTC issue for the past few decades, I have come to the sad conclusion it’s primary purpose is to be HUSH money for the media. One of the clearest examples is “60 Minutes”, the most respected “investigative” TV program. Every week 3/4 of it’s commercials are drug DTC adds and mostly for very old blockbuster drugs....Viagra, Cialis, Humira, Diabetes, cancer drugs, etc...
For instance, think about it, more than 20 years after it arrived on the US market, do you really think that anyone in America who might use it, doesn’t know what Viagra is? And over this time the price of a single Viagra pill has increased from about $13 to $80, despite plummeting usage due to severe competition...how could that possibly have happened?
BTW the same surging pricing and declining usage trends for many other old “blockbuster”drugs over the past couple of decades (multiple sclerosis, insulin, arthritis, etc) look just like Viagra...
Think this might be worth really investigating?....don’t hold your breadth....Despite the escalating crisis, ”60 minutes” has done exactly ONE 15-minute segment on US drug pricing over the past 5 years...Mike Wallace should rolling in his grave....
36
I don't like to use the word hate but i hate the drug companies. Any government that allows them to exist in this from is a corrupt government.
Not only is big Pharma ripping us off, but on the whole they do not help society. My instincts say half of all drugs and immunizations could disappear tomorrow and we would not miss them.
The government should sell generic drugs and let Big Slima disintegrate.
23
Agree about the drugs, but NOT the immunizations.
3
Only the most expensive of prescription medications are advertised on TV, and your doctor does not appreciate being asked to prescribe what you see advertised, when a less expensive and equally effective is more likely to be covered by your insurance company.
Prior to the Clinton administration, big pharma was not allowed to advertise their prescription products directly to the public. As a nation we still prohibit tobacco manufacturers from airing TV advertisements. Who benefits the most from Astra Zeneca and Pfizer's direct to consumer advertising?
24
Actually, Middleman, rx drugs started to be advertised on t.v. in the 1980's, so it was during the Reagan administration.
4
Some years ago the FDA invited public comments on drug advertising to the public. I suggested all ads be required to state the average monthly price of the drug - which would save doctors (like me) from having to explain why some of them are inappropriately bad value when there are other good alternatives . . . they may be surprised to learn that a lot of commonly advertised drugs (eg. Humira) cost several thousand dollars a month . . Victoza is $550-$840 per month
27
Black-ish is a great show, but I'm out. It has been a product placement platform for the past season or two. The Buick episode really ticked me off, but the diabetes show was the tipping point for me. I stupidly manipulative is this show trying to be? It's not right.
48
God bless the DVR. I never watch anything (cable news, sports, network news, etc.) without my own self imposed time delay of at least 20 minutes. The programs always end at the same time as the original broadcast and I avoid being bombarded by these depressing repetitive messages for medications that the average person can't afford, give you horrendous side effects and extend life, at best, for an extra couple of months of torture. My only surprise is that a country like New Zealand would be willing to allow their citizens to be subjected to this abuse. The United States? Not so surprised.
24
Frankly, the drug ads are no worse than the rest of American TV - it's almost all schlock.
4
But if you buy a car you generally just have a different car than you used to. When you buy Cialis or Humira or any of the other drugs advertised on TV your are putting powerful, harmful chemicals in your body. The next time you get a prescription ask the doctor to list the side effects and what parts of your body might be hurt by the drug other than the side effects. Then decide if the problem you are trying to solve is worth the damage you are doing to yourself.
6
And while you're asking the doctor to list the side effects, also ask him what he's been given as a gift by Big Pharma e.g. free lunches, holidays or even just the free pens and pads they give all doctors.
1
Sometimes it is. I'm currently taking a drug that is causing lots of bad side effects, but It is the first time in over 5 years that I've had major relief of nerve pain caused by damage to my spinal cord. I may change my mind later, but for now it is so very much worth it.
And I've always researched the effectiveness and side effects of the drugs I take, since doctors miss potential problems as well.
High cholesterol: there’s a drug for that!
Where is the commercial that tells you to work out and eat healthy? Oh right there is none! That’s the problem !!!
11
Point taken, but cholesterol may not be the best example to use. Many otherwise healthy people have high cholesterol.
9
The direct to consumer advertising of complex medical drugs was, and remains, a huge mistake. We are not served by it at all, the hype notwithstanding.
Oh, and the same goes for allowing lawyers to advertise. Different impact, perhaps, but just as corrosive to our society.
25
On the typical news broadcast we are typically inundated with the "ask your doctor" ambulance chaser lawyers & car commercials ! With little actual real & relevant news segments !I no longer watch this marathon of commercials !
5
We have drug companies imposing outrageous price increases on aging but essential drugs. Elaborate maneuvers to evade allowing a drug go out of patent and to discourage the introduction of competing generics. There is the inessential and probably harmful direct advertising discussed in this article.
All of these share the common theme that many drug companies appear to be utterly indifferent to the suffering of those who cannot live without these drugs and may have to destroy themselves financially in order to get them. A facile response, of course, has to do with co-pays and rebate programs, but these simply shift the burden to other sick people.
I don't believe that in the past there has been such a corporate willingness, and even eagerness, to profiteer from human suffering. Of course is impossible to legislate individual morality, but we live in an age of stigma, and perhaps some of this should properly adhere to drug executives.
15
That list of "side effects"? They are the EFFECTS.
11
Notice how there are never any GOOD side effects in these medications? That's because if there were, the medications would be marketed aggressively with those effects front and center.
2
I always marvel at the "ask your Dr. if (fill in the blank) is for you. If my doctor doesn't know what meds I need, I need a new doctor!
26
How ironic that while reading this on my iPad, multiple ads for diabetes medications and treatments insert themselves
16
Thank you! Drug commercials are totally out of control and I don't hear one single public figure saying a single word against it. Apparently all politicians of all stripes have been bought off by Big Pharma. I never have and never will "talk to my doctor" about any drug that is pushed on television. Direct to consumer advertising is very close to the unlicensed practice of medicine and is totally unethical. A nation with a conscience would ban it.
32
Not all politicians are tone deaf. In 2015, Al Franken proposed a bill to cut tax breaks for pharmaceutical advertising. Recently, Claire McCaskill revived the issue.
Problem is these measures go nowhere in a corporate owned Congress because we stupidly vote for candidates who don't represent the best interest of their constituents.
6
There is advertising for food and then the drugs to treat metabolic syndrome of obesity and other problems. There are no shows or advertising about eating right or normal, balanced exercise. There is one ad about the $5000 peloton. Money is the object , not your health. So we all get bombarded by one side only all the time. Maybe a government agency like the Surgeon General could run a few public information spots on a regular basis. And thats not socialism or government overreach or whatever other BS the libertarians and alt-right want to call it. Do not, however, expect the current administration have any common ground, all inclusive, civic responsibility , common sense solution.
8
America, you were founded on a principle of by the people, for the people. However you are run by the dollar, for the dollar.
16
Danny Hakim nicely describes the diabetes drug commercial: "There were scenes of a woman in a doctor’s office, an older couple gardening, women painting sunflowers. There were side effects: 'nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion and constipation.'” But what this commercial lacks, as do almost all others, is any visual balance. As the side effects are listed, the happy patients keep smiling, painting, etc. If the commercial were to achieve the "balance” required by FDA regulations, we would see the women vomiting into their paintings or the older couple running to the toilet with explosive diarrhea. Almost as bad as the commercials is the government's neglect of its own rules.
19
Ads that offer medications for Alzheimers and cancer are most disturbing. Usually, the patient is seen as just going about their daily life, playing with the grandkids and everything is just fine. Wouldn't their doctor have already explored the possibility of a certain drug? It's not like discussing the pros and cons of tylenol versus advil with your practitioner - these are usually end stage illnesses. Same goes for those cancer hospitals that "might" have a better way to treat a patient. Are they saying my health care provider is not addressing my needs and too inept to refer me to a specialist - or that I'm perhaps not able to qualify for such care for financial or other reasons? Or could they be running trials on unproven treatments that may just lead to false hope?
12
If you're spending 6 billion a year to directly advertise drugs, that money is coming from somewhere, right? Yeah, right out of the pockets of sick patients. This is such a disgrace and the policy of marketing pharmaceuticals directly to the American public should stop immediately. It has no benefit except for the drug companies and we, the public, are subjected to hours and hours of these commercials.
41
One of the reasons I have stopped watching commercial television is just that - the commercials. They are loud, annoying, and almost all of them are for cars and drugs and fast food. Advertisers think we are all stupid.
A year or so ago, I saw a commercial for some "gotta have it" drug that was immediately followed by a commercial for a law firm asking viewers to join their class action suit against the maker of that same drug. Apparently, there were some viewers who were gullible enough to actually take the touted pharmaceutical and now needed legal help.
I'll stick to PBS when I feel like watching television. It's TV for your brain.
18
I gave American TV the heave-ho in the early 1980s when finishing up at university. And haven't regretted it since. We watch the news in Dutch, French, German and Russian to maintain our language fluencies and get a different perspective from those countries where we have family and friends. Waste your time in front of your flat screen mounted like a titulary deity from the Roman era in your dwelling. You'll have to answer for the brain-deadening effects sooner or later.
7
I hate that everything in America is sold; everything is money. I also think that all the commercials for medicine is making us into hypochondriacs.
16
You know we have real problems when they advertise for a med that treats double chins. Or how about one for a pill to lessen anxiety in social situations? I never knew such a condition existed! I saw an ad for a drug to fix crooked weenies a few days ago. Now that may be a legitimate problem, but it may also be a gift, depending on your view. Big pharma convincing us that we have all these "problems". One drug usually begets another.
Are you experiencing a bunch of friggin side effects from taking that medication prescribed for you from that last checkup?
Ask your doctor if Cease-Dat-Side-Effect-Aphlam is right for you.
Here are three things the drug industry does not want you to do:
Eat more vegetables and fruits.
Exercise.
Accept yourself for who you are.
13
I agree, America is awash in pharmaceutical advertising of prescription drugs and the like. It always makes me wonder why do they keep doing this when it's only the Doctor who can prescribe it? I know...I know...the answer is simple. It's pharmacological propaganda; in effect priming the pump to get those profits a'flowin'. It's all to peddle the drugs. And a drug pusher's gotta do what a drug pushers gotta do, eh?
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
8
Drug advertising is iniquitous and there can be no defense of it when the entire rest of the world has outlawed it. But the most pathetic aspect of it is ... “If you can’t afford your medication DrugRacketeer MAY be able to help”. You don’t get that faux charitable proviso in nations with humane single payer systems because foreigners CAN afford it. Only in America do citizens have to choose between food and drugs, and between death or personal bankruptcy. All because your political leaders answer to corporations instead of the citizenry. Land Of The Free indeed.
15
While a practicing physician I was swimming against the tsunami of these advertisements. In addition to priming patients to want drug A, ads would also have the unfortunate effect of raising the profile of a disease which--surprise!--the drug maker just happened to have a drug to treat it. Also, the ads skewed toward high cost drugs likely to be used for a long duration. This has warped the drug industry to seek mostly medications to treat conditions in countries (like the US) with money to pay for them instead of treating conditions of greatest impact especially in foreign countries. So the net result worldwide on drugs for diseases is less drugs to treat:
Malaria (countries with less cash)
Bacterial infections (treatment length too short)
Tuberculosis (again, mostly in poorer countries, so far!)
News broadcasts also do not help much. When the last outbreak of Ebola occurred in West Africa, the news made us all a bit crazy, locking up nurses, checking temperatures in airports, considering quarantines for entire countries. Americans were more like to die from lightning, bee stings or falling in the tub than from Ebola but you could not tell that from our actions or from watching the news.
For the love of God and the love of one another, stop direct to patient advertising on print and electronic media. Today.
15
Drug commercials now embedded inside the sitcom. Well, no wonder. After ruining TV with ever-longer commercials that made a market for Netflix and Amazon, now they’re after ruining the actual show.
And if you don’t like drug ads- don’t get old. Thanks to targeted ads, nearly EVERY commercial on any channel, any type of show for we oldsters is for some drug. The mute button has become my best friend.
And special laughs go to the ‘ask your doctor’ mantra (when I’m away from the remote). I’m lucky I have time to discuss anything but essential symptoms (while he’s typing) in my ....what, allotted 20 minutes.
Off the subject- NYTimes; dump the moving, flashing, changing story intro pictures; distracting, irritating, pointless. And the one for this article ate the first paragraph.
14
This has nothing to do with the cost of our drugs in the US. I have been in the pharmaceutical industry for over a quarter century and know whereof I speak. The USA is one of very few countries in the world where the price of drugs is not government regulated. And that's the sad truth. The manufacturers calculate, through marketing research and consumer testing, what the market will bear. And that's how the price is set. Not on how long it took or how much it cost to develop the drug. Just on what the companies bet the consumer/insurer is willing to pay. It's a deal with the devil.
12
What the market will bear? So when people stop buying needed drugs, perhaps dying from the lack, the price will go down?
3
Check out this graph on prescription expenditure in the U.S. Funny how it seems to jump really high after the terrible decision to allow direct to consumer advertising.... Sorry, I have to stop typing right now because I just self diagnosed another ailment...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184914/prescription-drug-expenditure...
7
For anyone interested, I may add that Senator Clair McCaskill of Missouri just recently sent out a letter condemning the advertising tactics of Big Pharma and the tax rebates they get on advertising.
Not only are these companies selling us junk meds, but they are getting tax rebates as well on the billions they spend on advertising junk medications most of which are not good for much of anything except the bottom line of the drug pushers.
13
Terrible. They should not blur the line between entertainment and commercials.
4
The irony! An article about diabetes ads on TV that intersect with the content of the show they support, and here, in this very same article, between paragraphs, are ads for blood sugar spike medication. It’s a bit Kafkaesque.
6
I stopped watching Blackish after the Disney World episode. That was so appallingly cheesy, I could no longer believe in the characters. So I missed this one. But blatant product placement--and infomercials like the Disney episode and apparently this one--distract from otherwise well-written shows (and movies) and cheapen the viewing experience.
7
These words are scary on more than one level: "one-quarter of adult patients who visited their physician after seeing” a commercial “received a new diagnosis of a condition,” and “nearly half of the diagnoses were for ‘high priority’ conditions." The power of pharmaceutical companies reaches into your living room and your provider's office to steer the use of over-priced medications your way (that may or may not work), many with more than just nuisance side affects. Factor in the PBM/insurance mergers and it simmers like a bad stew of healthcare soup.
7
An episode of Electric Dreams has dramatized the taking over of Everything by the Corporations. That time has come.
5
An acquaintance told me she witnessed her doctor yelling at "his" drug rep outside an examination room, bellowing, "You didn't TELL me it causes [insert bad drug reaction here]." Comforting to know he did his research before prescribing...or not.
I have read that doctors don't have the time to keep up with the thousands of medical findings that are published every day on sites like PubMed, and that we the people need to do that ourselves. Okay then. What about the people who don't have access to a computer or the web (the elderly, the infirm, the indigent? But wow - we are just bombarded by these ads - women's magazines are the WORST. I pick up a Canadian or British magazine and just...sigh. With envy. NO DTC (direct to consumer) ADS. But the drug lobby is just as powerful as the NRA, so reversing the 1997 legislation ain't gonna happen. Does Sally Field still take Boniva?
14
The advertising by Pharma goes along with the ability granted to the very wealthy to buy elections and politicians. The country has bowed down to corporations and shareholders, with little, if any, regard for the citizenry. And we wonder why we are so broken?
23
Never, ever forget that it's all about the money and the golden rule, not "do unto others..." but: he who has the gold makes the rules (which insure he will make more money). Big Pharma bribes potential generic makers to hold off entering the market, using chump change (if you can call millions that) to hang on to their billion dollar monopolies for another year or two. New patents are issued for extended release versions of old drugs, given new names and heavily marketed to both Drs and consumers. B.P. moans and groans about how hard it is to get new drug approvals. While true that only 1 of 10 new meds make it through the FDA process, which can take 10 years or more, and stock prices can tank when a potential new med fails to show safety (first) and efficacy, the industry still spends 2 to 3 times as much for marketing as it does for research. The newest wrinkle is the merger/purchase of insurance companies and Big Pharmacy and Big Pharmacy Benefit Managing companies (Aetna and CVS; Cigna and Express Scripts). And don't get me started on the entirely unregulated and enormously profitable herbal and supplement purveyors, who also engage in extensive and misleading ads and infomercials.
12
They used to advertise cigarettes on TV and every movie from Hollywood had the stars happily puffing away and blowing smoke rings.Tobacco ads were ubiquitous and were selectively targeted to women and teens.Finally people realized that tobacco use caused illness and death. The ads for pharmaceuticals follow the same format.They are designed to assure TV viewers that their lives will be measurably improved by trying the latest most expensive drug.Everyone should play close attention to the possible side effects which must be mentioned because many warn of bleeding, dizziness and catastrophic organ failure.People should heed these warnings as injurious to their health.
7
I'm in my seventies and fortunately take no prescription (or OTC) drugs, save the occasional Ibprofen. I mostly watch television that I record but I have watched the drug ads and what I take away from them is that the serious side effects are terrifying for most drugs. Do these advertisements really increase drug sales? If I found myself with one of these diseases, my doctor would have to do some serious convincing to get me to even consider these drugs, save the ones where the alternative to taking the medication is certain, imminent and excruciating death. Am I missing something?
3
I have a special button on my remote.
It's a serious addiction for me.
I push it whenever the noise from my tv begins to crawl into my brain.
" mute".
That's when I get on with my life.
Sometimes I even forget to turn the volume up and walk away from whatever I was watching.
That's the whole point.
At least, that's what it's come to.
9
I don't watch much "live" TV -- I DVR everything, so I zip through all commercials. It saves time and brain cells.
2
Results may vary, but, when I got rid of my TV, I got rid of ALL commercials. And I didn't even have to talk to my doctor about it.
60
Advertising prescription drugs drives up the demand for those drugs. After all, that is the goal of advertising, and it works. Physicians are consequently bombarded by requests to prescribe this or that novel pharmaceutical, and that, together with our private insurance system, allows pharmaceutical companies to charge almost any price. It's whatever price the market will bear, and if consumers are clamoring for it and insurance companies will pay for it, the market is there. Of course we all pay at the end for this as our insurance premiums rise. There's no free drug.
Corporations are making a killing from the ordinary citizen's fear of death.
21
I remember a commercial which ended with "Ask your doctor if xxx is right for you."
I was tempted to ask as the commercial provided no indication of what condition the medication treated.
5
While the production costs of a 90-second drug commercial can be high, I don't think it is the reason for higher prescription costs. Rather, Americans simply have more money, and any marketing genius knows to apply the principle of determining price by what the market will bear. And who wouldn't pay a high price to be relieved of symptoms suggested by a commercial?
One simple solution short of banning drug commercials is to require the word "advertisement" on the TV screen just as it is required on print advertisements.
4
Watching TV in the evening it seems like half commercial at that time are for some kind of medication. This is also a time when many of our kids are watching TV. What kind of message is this sending to them: that there is a drug for everything, drug are cool, take more drugs? This is not the message we should be sending to impressionable young people. Maybe these ads should be restricted to a later time period.
9
I recommend giving up TV completely. It's worked like a charm for me in keeping my blood pressure down.
13
I wish they'd be banned as well.... but another idea is what if for every $$ spent on advertising companies have to spend some % contributing to programs for overall prevention and health. Too many have no incentive in this country for a healthy population. Drug companies do better if we're all obese, insurers don't care about our health...TV stations are sure happy for those ads.
10
My colleagues and I have talked for years about banning direct to consumer advertising. It is the bane of our existence and of COURSE increases prices. The pharmaceutical industry spends more on marketing than ANY other sector. It is not R&D as they would like us to believe. In addition to patients coming in getting diagnosed with a disease that may or may not be appropriately treated by the drug du jour patients will often NOT want to take a medication that IS recommended because they heard all the common side effects: that occur in <= 5% of patients. Not the 30% they perceive it to be. Meanwhile insurance company prior authorization scams are essentially practicing medicine without a license, a waste of time for those of us who DID spend the time and effort getting an education.
95
The public should be aware that advertising drugs does not sit well with most physicians. The only thing doctors can do about this terrible mess - hawking medicine like it's shoes or cheese [no offense to shoe or cheese salespeople] is to bar pharmaceutical representatives from the office. I did this, telling them they could either advertise to the public or come to my office to detail their products to me, but they could not do both. Moreover, I told patients that if there was a choice between a drug that was advertised versus one that was not, I would select the latter over the former. Nothing upsets physicians more than to see some phony ad with happy actors pushing drugs and telling viewers "to discuss it with their doctors". I'm sure the "discussion" in my office would not have pleased Big Pharma.
117
Years ago, before drug companies filled the airways with their advertisements, they peddled their wares the way other drug dealers did: In person. My son had quite severe asthma and allergies, and one afternoon as we sat in his pediatric allergist's waiting room, a well dressed, briefcase-armed man entered the waiting room from the service entrance, to be met by a smiling and welcoming doctor in the practice. They shook hands, both grinning, and retreated to the inner sanctum of examination rooms and private offices. My son and I continued our long waiting room stint, but well within 15 minutes, the well dressed and still beaming man reappeared in our waiting room, once again shaking the hand of the also beaming physician. From bits of their conversation, I learned that this man was a drug salesman, better known in my younger days as a "pusher," and indeed he was. This experience was the first time that I really understood that my son's condition was a moneymaker for perfectly legal drug dealers and their close colluding cousins, the docs.
21
Toss the TV. Problem solved!
15
Or switch to PBS news like I did. The commercials drove me to it
3
A little while ago, while being bombarded with these ads during the evening news and prime time, out of curiosity I started Googling the drugs that were so slickly advertised to see how much they cost. Surprise — most if not all, are astronomical: Most likely out of reach of some patients unless they have high-powered HSAs or generous health plans. But yet, these drugs are presented to the average viewer as desirable, life-changing cure-alls, followed (of course) by the obligatory side effect disclaimers that last almost as long as the commercials themselves, which should tell people something.
Prescription medication is not a commodity like coffee, detergent, or candy. Advertising to doctors in professional publications is one thing; doing the same to consumers is another. A particular medicatin and its appropriateness is a conversation between a patient and his or her doctor; just because Blythe Danner, Phil Mickelson, or the funny IBS lady touts it as being great doesn’t mean it’s the best answer for everyone.
I have no illusion that if these ads stopped tomorrow the outrageous prices of these drugs would drop. But to me this wanton commercialization of pharnaceuticals is both medically and ethically questionable.
81
You DO realize that every single sitcom, drama, and A.M. Talk show is rife with embedded and paid content, right? Same for movies. There is a whole industry that does nothing but embed promo messages (and concomitant story arcs that sometimes go on the entire season) into otherwise "non-commercial" content. (In fact, Disney has created dolls for all the "Wrinkle in Time" characters - blatant but at least it's explicit and not embedded.). Ditto for anytime you see a performer on an A.M.talk show talking about some ailment and then injecting the "by the way" that she (it's usually a she) is the "ambassador" for [insert nefarious drug, food, fashion brand here]. The morning talkies are the worst offenders. Nothing to see here, folks, turns into everything's for sale here, naive ones.
14
You're being way too smug. Some are much, much more dangerous than others. That's why medical ads are banned in most countries, but car ads are not banned inmost countries. Your daughter wanting the Disney doll is not as dangerous as people believing the latest drug making Big Pharma wealthy is going to heal them.
7
Product placement in films. It's no accident that you can see the label or the front of the box.
1
Although I agree that it's bad policy for drug companies to be permitted to advertise on television; I find many problems in this editorial.
As African Americans are more likely than Caucasians to suffer from Type 2 Diabetes. it is appropriate topic for Black-ish. Doubly so since, as is addressed in the editorial, Anthony Anderson suffers from Type 2 Diabetes.
It was a more likely that it was a blood sugar monitor than a drug applicator that Anthony Anderson's character, Dre, had trouble bringing himself to use.
As many Americans use "alternative" medicine instead of following their doctors' advice; I believe that it is important to call out "cures" that don't cure or, even worse, compound medical problems.
I applaud the producers and writers of Black-ish for consulting with medical professionals when creating an episode that includes medical information. So many medical shows have ridiculous scenarios. Just check the reviews on IMDB where medical professionals state that the writers didn't understand basic human anatomy. A constant and fair criticism is that medical professionals should have consulted.
10
"I applaud the producers and writers of Black-ish for consulting with medical professionals when creating an episode that includes medical information."
Ellen N: you dont get it at all: The comedy show with fictional characters "scene at the doctors office" was aggressively endorsing a sponsored Rx. Then the TV ad played for a pricey Rx.
It crosses the line every which way. If a sitcom wants to educate about health: it shouldnt be partnering with a for-profit corporation to do that.
14
Most or all of the medical shows have medical advisers. When medical professionals complain about medicine, if they're right, it's probably something the show's medical adviser got wrong. But most of the time the medical professionals just whine about the way medical professionals are portrayed. The American Medical Association for a long time had control over TV scripts so that medical professionals would be portrayed as all-good and all-knowing. There's an old NY Times article about that. In another old NY Times article, the doctor complained not about human anatomy in the show but about the fact the doctor in the show got a car park close to the hospital entrance. "We never get good car park spots," the NY Times article quoted the doctor whining. Please look for that NY Times article if you don't believe me!
2
ALL discounts negotiated by insurance companies and their assigns must be passed on to the insured. They are the ones paying the insurance company to do this on their behalf and is the source of funds that the insurance company uses to even have these negotiations.
5
When reading Ask Your Doctor, a film comes to mind.
Gaslighting... 1944.
Drug ads and medicine today fit nicely in Danny Hakim's piece.
In due course, we will question reality ... medicine, care, and our physicians.
When your doctor wants you to take a pill, is he aware of what is said about pills?
Read the book by Rodney Dietert PhD of Cornell DVM school.
The Human Superorganism: How the Microbiome Is Revolutionizing the Pursuit of a Healthy Life -
In which he questions the use of any meds that slam the gut biome.
4
I am convinced, we the consumers pay for the entire pharma industry. We customers are the reason health care costs are insanely high in the US, more than any other developed or underdeveloped world. Because the high cost of producing expensive drugs is passed on to the consumers. There is no one to protect gullible consumers since the physicians are in cahoots with the pharma industry (my physician relative has spend his entire career being wined and dined and invited to free lunches, sponsored conferences to promote drugs). Let the indictment of Martin Shkreli be a lesson to everyone. Keep your eyes wide open.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-sentenced-to-7...
18
I like blackish but I'm not going to watch a 30 minute commercial. Blackish, you lost me I'll never watch again.
19
Bravo, paulie. Spend your 30 minutes on something valuable, like time with your family.
3
As a nurse, I am glad to see a family television show tackle diabetes and normalize the inclusion of treatment into the character's lifestyle. It is an illness with an incredibly high toll that is too easily ignored in the early stages. That being said, I highly object to medication being advertised directly to the public. Instead, we need to focus on the most important, but least expensive aspects of treatment - a prudent diet and exercise regimen. Its not sexy perhaps, but that is the bed rock of a healthy lifestyle. Please, please, advertise vegetables over drugs!
3
You know the drug commercial where they say "do not give to children under 6 years of age, and not for use for children ages 6 through 18."? Why don't they just say "not for use for children 18 and younger? Do they just throw it out there to see if anyone is really listening? Drug commercials are annoying as h- - -! I have yet to ask my doctor about any advertised drug.
18
Not mentioned here is the fact that the TV networks like CBS use their Dr segments to tee up the big pharmaceutical ads that sell them. What scam!
10
Prescription drug commercials make the public generally more educated. As they do not read medical journals, etc. they are unaware of new products and their benefits. Physicians are sometimes too busy or too set in their ways to embrace new products. I want up-to-date information and I want to continually learn until I die.
1
If you think corporate commercials are a form of "education," you have more learning to do than you realize.
10
Pharmaceutical advertising takes lethal advantage of the fact that most people rely on information obtained from advertising.
When that advertising describes a dangerous drug using comical or light-hearted video, the manufacturer should be held responsible for any case of misuse of the drug.
7
Drug commercials are becoming ubiquitous! The most nauseating one, and in some ways sadly funny is the one for Atrial fibrillation! In the commercial, they call it A-Fib! Sounding like it's something cool to have! Pathetic!!!
39
Not so funny really. That's exactly what my cardiologists and surgeons, and nurses have called it for more than the ten years since my surgery.
2
Everytime a drug commercial comes on TV, I do this voice over for my family
"Ask your Doctor if PharmaCash may be right for you. PharmaCash is designed to cure a completely made up disease. Side effects may include excessive bleeding, blindness, death and loss of your savings."
65
There may be a lot of ethically dubious decisions that lead up to pharmaceutical advertising, but the diseases are not made up. Real people are suffering real pain from real diseases and are desperate for real cures.
2
The death warnings in the commercials are hysterical - but the one that cracks me up lately is one that says: do not take (actual medication name) if you are allergic to (actual medication name). OK.
85
I once read a package insert that stated to stop taking upon death!
27
Like commercials for cigarettes, commercials for pharmaceuticals should be banned.
215
Re: "...I checked. It’s true that only the United States and New Zealand allow direct advertising of prescription drugs to consumers, while Brazil allows some advertising of nonprescription, over-the-counter medications.
36 years ago I gave my 1St. parental, (I.V.-push, 'N, drip...during a cardiac arrest), medication(s) to a 'real' patient, vs. another paramedic student / under an 'ICU-CCU-ER' preceptor-nurse...
It was a bit, like walking, across a 100-ft deep lake on ice so thin you could read your initials, if written on passing minnows!!
it's VERY, (cynically), amusing: 1/2 a, (typical), pharmaceutical commercial is taken up by 'adverse affects', 'N, 'call your doctor' warnings, while the NEXT commercial is quite, likely to be c/o 'XYZ.Attorneys.com'...describing the 'riches, allegedly to be made' by the patient/patient's survivors, "...if you contact us, right now!"!!!!
Pharmaceutical commercials ALWAYS end with: 'talk to your Dr.' / something, similar. I remember when the late stand_up king, Geo. Carlin...talked, 'bout how, when you, 'tell your doctor what-/-how much to prescribe...your talking to your pusher...', L.O.L.!
4
My favorite "'XYZ.Attorneys.com." TV commercial around here is the one that promises, "We'll get the money you deserve!" Note that they don't say "We'll get YOU the money that you deserve. . . ."
2
Ahhhh...the mental benefits of living without a TV for decades!
24
I agree that there are huge problems with this direct marketing of branded, patented drugs to the general public. However, in many cases that is the only way a patient may learn of other options for care — medications that his or her physician is not offering. Ideally, this prompts a discussion with your doctor at your next appointment (which is admittedly more difficult to achieve now that so many doctors are required to keep a strict eye on the clock) about whether that drug is right for you. Unfortunately, some doctors might write a script for you just to get you out of the office.
It sometimes these discussions improve your care. When a migraine medication I take lost its patent, the pharmaceutical company that held that patent created and marketed a combined version of the drug. I saw an ad for this “new,” branded, expensive medication and mentioned it to my neurologist. He told me to duplicate it by taking the generic drug (still fuels overpriced) with an OTC medication. This combo worked very well for me, but I would never have learned of it unless I had seen the advertisement for that branded drug and asked aboumgetng a prescription for it.
3
The drugs advertised on TV are marketed to patients, not doctors. All doctors know about these drugs, and know about their high cost. Cancer drugs that result in a median three month increase in lifespan , at a cost of $120000, are being pushed towards patients because doctors recognize the absurd cost/benefit ratio. We need to ban drug advertising in order to lower the cost of drugs. While we are at it, ask Congress to allow Medicare to be able to negotiate with drug companies on drug prices (forbidden right now thanks to Big Pharma lobbying efforts).
133
3 more months of life is not nothing
1
Stefan,
The biggest risk factor for cancer is age. When you are 72 with terminal cancer, is an extra 3 months worth $120000? I say no. That same $120000 if invested in so many other ways would have a much bigger effect. For example, buy a house for a poor family. Pay for college for a student who will be the first in the family to attend college. Build homeless shelters. What Americans don’t understand about medical care is that the money for that care is coming from somewhere, and it could be allocated from hopeless and unnecessary care to high value endeavors.
4
I doubt most doctors are aware of prices.
2
When a pill or medication can be advertised to millions of people through TV and the voice over describing possible side effects says that one side effect could include: "death", then the whole point of the advertising becomes so surreal as to be ridiculous. Why not just say: "buy this pill. It could help you, or it could kill you." "Good luck."
40
I remember CEO of Mylan testifying to congress on cost of epic-pen.
Per-pen breakdown was something like this (approx):
- cost to manufacture $37
- cost to 'educate' population/doctors: $100
- cost added by PBMs (express scripts, Caremark): $150
- cost to end-users: $300
** - cost to end-users in Europe: $50. (per European drug database)
110
Epi-pens (they come in a box of two, potentially needed for one treatment) cost over $700. You need more than one box at a time because if you are a kid, you need a box at home, you need at least one box at school ( one in classroom, one in lunchroom, one in afterschool activities or office.) You also need one in your backpack / sports bag. So, $2100 later, you are set. They expire in a year and schools won't accept an expired one.
If you have a high-deductible health plan, you have to come up with $2100 just to keep your kid safe. How many low-income people can do that?
It's criminal that in the United States our big pharma companies can take something that costs $37 to manufacture and is essential to keep someone alive in an emergency situation, and charge $700 a pop.
Epi-Pens should be covered the same as essential vaccinations, no co-pay.
Medicare/Medicaid should be REQUIRED to negotiate drug prices, not prevented. It's our money they are using.
197
It's similar for hearing aids- about $20 to manufacture, audiologists buy them for ~ $200, sell them for $2000.
8
Interestingly, ampules of epi aren’t available (back ordered). Wonder why?
4
Entertainment for the masses...
This cuts no ice... Danny.
3
A lot of these ads are within news broadcasts. What better way to avoid bad press that sponsor the news?
7
I used to watch "The Closer" and was stunned to see products advertised on the show end up IN the show (Brenda had a twizzler moment in the show, and then there was an ad for twizzlers!)
9
I canceled cable TV partly for this reason, can't be bother with sinister commercials thriving on the uninformed and ill to make a big profit. Like Dr. J. mentioned, is all about taking charge of our own health rather than some profit seeking body telling us what we should eat and what to take for illness. The answers to our health are in nature through whole plants. Its time to wake up and do our own research to educate ourselves, rather than falling for industry manipulated scientific data created for their own benefit, not ours. Be weary, ask questions, read labels, don't be fooled, stay alive and healthy.
12
My physician had a wonderful sign in his examining room; it read:
"Ask your doctor if getting medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you."
289
If I could like this a thousand times, I would!
5
I liked the cartoon that showed the doctor giving two pills to a patient with the advice “take two of these before googling your symptoms.”
2
Excellent. This disclaimer should be required in all drug advertising.
2
Yes, and price-gouging on insulins is rampant with the three biggest companies having raised prices -- in tandem -- over and over again in the last decade.
Great opinion column.
58
Honestly, now that we no longer regulate the advertising of pharmaceuticals directly to consumers, why bother requiring prescriptions anymore? Our country has lost all perspective with regard to government’s responsibility to ensure safety in the medical industry!
42
Because it's March, can we also name the prolonged advertising binge that is PBS's trimonthly Pledge Month? While there are some sad/sorry entertainment segments, and the occasional debut of interesting documentaries, much of what has passed for Pledge Month for many years now is advertising by authors pushing their solutions under what might be called the broad category of Health, Wellness and Human Potential Movement - much of which dovetails into a kind of belief system. The goal is to show nodding heads (showing gentles smiles of recognition/heightened self-awareness) of largely white upper middle class Boomers - the target donor class for PBS.
This was all presaged by the gradual downshifting of PBS's educational programs to become more about lifestyle than instruction. (Compare the % of 30 minutes of hardcore content of Julia Child's initial seasons of The French Chef to what passes for many PBS cooking shows today. Compare the original Jim Crockett's Victory Garden similarly to the residue in the last seasons of that long-running show, which was never given a proper burial. Watch This Old House projects that mostly cater to the upper class with normal home improvement sidelined to Ask This Old House and the token middle-class project on the main show. Et cet.)
66
That’s a funny observation. I’ve been wondering why so many PBS pledge drives feature health and wellness shows.
6
Boomer neuroses. A tried and true technique of consumer capitalism is to stroke a consumer anxiety, and then sell a product, service, idea or experience to salve it.
7
I actually called PBS to ask if my donations were supporting Suze Orman and Dr Amen, and other frauds. After speaking to several people who had no clue, I finally reached the local director who told me that listener donations go to all the programs, including those I object to. Bummer.
11
What about lifestyle changes to control chronic conditions? The Standard American Diet (SAD) is probably responsible for about 80% of our chronic illnesses. My brother was overweight eating a terrible diet. He became vegan and started exercising; he gradually lost about 70 pounds, and eventually went off his statin and his diabetes drug (metformin). He is now tapering off his high blood pressure medication. It didn't happen overnight, it happened over years. And he says he feels better than he has in years. And he is just one of many. Whole foods ( = unprocessed), plant based ( = no animal products). Far more effective for many, many chronic diseases. with no side effects (unless you count the positive ones, like increased regularity, etc).
Nutritionfacts.org -- check it out. A nonprofit that reviews scientific nutrition articles published in peer reviewed journals and presents the information in easily accessible videos, with links provided to the articles reviewed, And much more.
48
Thank you for that reference to nutritionfacts.org!
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
2