1
   

Proposal to restore ban prohibiting prescription drug TV ads

 
 
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 09:08 am
I am proposing that when we have a Democratic president in the White House, a top priority should be to retore the historic ban prohibiting prescription drug advertising on TV. This practice is doing great harm to patients, their care givers, and the medical care delivery system. It's time to put patient welfare above obscene profits of the drug industry. ---BBB

Prescriptions

In the U.S. , prescriptions have increased over the past decade to 3.4 billion annually, a 61 percent increase. Retail sales of prescription drugs jumped 250 percent from $72 billion to $250 billion, while the average price of prescriptions has more than doubled from $30 to $68.

Retail prescription drug sales 1995 to 2006 PDF from www.census.gov

Marketing

Pharmaceutical companies commonly spend a large amount on advertising, marketing and lobbying.[citation needed] In the US, drug companies spend $19 billion a year on promotions. Advertising is common in healthcare journals as well as through more mainstream media routes. In some countries, notably the US, they are allowed to advertise direct to the general public. Pharmaceutical companies generally employ sales people (often called 'drug reps' or, an older term, 'detail men') to market directly and personally to physicians and other healthcare providers. In some countries, notably the US, pharmaceutical companies also employ lobbyists to influence politicians. Marketing of prescription drugs in the US is regulated by the federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987.

To healthcare professionals

Physicians are perhaps the most important players in pharmaceutical sales because they write the prescriptions that determine which drugs will be used by the patient. Influencing the physician is often seen as the key to prescription pharmaceutical sales. A medium-sized pharmaceutical company might have a sales force of 1000 representatives. The largest companies have tens of thousands of representatives. Currently, there are approximately 100,000 pharmaceutical sales reps in the United States pursuing some 120,000 pharmaceutical prescribers. The number doubled in the four years from 1999 to 2003. Drug companies spend $5 billion annually sending representatives to physician offices. Pharmaceutical companies use the service of specialized healthcare marketing research companies to perform Marketing research among Physcians and other Healthcare professionals.

To insurance and public health bodies

Private insurance or public health bodies (e.g. the NHS in the UK) decide which drugs to pay for, and restrict the drugs that can be prescribed through the use of formularies.

This, along with the high-margin companies that can realise for their most successful medicines, make pharmaceutical marketing complex. There are a number of firms that specialize in data and analytics for pharmaceutical marketing.

Public and private insurers restrict the brands, types and number of drugs that they will cover. Not only can the insurer affect drug sales by including or excluding a particular drug from a formulary, they can affect sales by tiering or placing bureaucratic hurdles to prescribing certain drugs as well. In January 2006, the U.S. instituted a new public prescription drug plan through its Medicare program known as Medicare Part D. This program engages private insurers to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for the placement of drugs on tiered formularies.

To retail pharmacies and stores

Commercial stores and pharmacies are a major target of non-prescription sales and marketing for pharmaceutical companies.

Direct to consumer advertising

Since the 1980s new methods of marketing for prescription drugs to consumers have become important. Direct-to-consumer media advertising was legalised in the FDA Guidance for Industry on Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements

Controversy about drug marketing and lobbying

There has been increasing controversy surrounding pharmaceutical marketing and influence. There have been accusations and findings of influence on doctors and other health professionals through drug reps, including the constant provision of marketing 'gifts' and biased information to health professionals; highly prevalent advertising in journals and conferences; funding independent healthcare organizations and health promotion campaigns; lobbying physicians and politicians (more than any other industry in the US; sponsorship of medical schools or nurse training; sponsorship of continuing educational events, with influence on the curriculum; and hiring physicians as paid consultants on medical advisory boards.

Some advocacy groups, such as No Free Lunch, have criticized the effect of drug marketing to physicians because they say it biases physicians to prescribe the marketed drugs even when others might be cheaper or better for the patient.

There have been related accusations of disease mongering (over-medicalising) to expand the market for medications. An inaugural conference on that subject took place in Australia in 2006.

A 2005 review by a special committee of the UK government came to all the above conclusions in a European Union context whilst also highlighting the contributions and needs of the industry.


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION MODERIZATION ACT OF 1997
http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/105-115.htm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,397 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 09:17 am
I am not sure I see the "harm". When I see these commercials on TV, my hair hurts every time, especially after they tell you all the "potential" side effects of the drug being advertised.

Everytime I go to the MD and he prescribes something for me and I ask him to tell me about the drug, it seems like an effort to the MD that I ask a question.

One time he prescribed a collestoral drug ZOCOR, and I remembers the ad and I asked him about all these side effects. He basically said "DO NOT LISTEN TO THOSE COMMERCIALS. "

Confusing issue.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 09:58 am
I swear this is true; a few months ago I was watching the telly and some medication was being touted and then came the list of possible side-effects which included "DEATH".
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 10:54 am
dyslexia wrote:
I swear this is true; a few months ago I was watching the telly and some medication was being touted and then came the list of possible side-effects which included "DEATH".
Laughing Tell me about it!
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 10:59 am
As I understand it, the multi-million dollar marketing campaigns are paid for by consumers by increased drug prices.

I wouldn't mind seeing the ads go away for that simple reason alone.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 11:28 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Fun_Ball
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 02:25 pm
Boomer
boomerang wrote:
As I understand it, the multi-million dollar marketing campaigns are paid for by consumers by increased drug prices.

I wouldn't mind seeing the ads go away for that simple reason alone.


Another excellent reason to put a stop to TV advertising.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 07:43 am
When decades ago there was the tv commercial that showed "Excedrin headache #(I forgot the number)," I sort of got a headache for the next 15 minutes or so. The current prescription drug commercials are worse, in my opinion, since they specify all the contraindications.

Groucho Marx in a Desoto was my preference for a commercial.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 08:55 am
foffie
foffie, do you think we could start a movement to achieve the goal of banning TV prescription drug advertising? I'm willing to try. Are you and other A2Kers?

BBB
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 09:26 am
Re: foffie
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
foffie, do you think we could start a movement to achieve the goal of banning TV prescription drug advertising? I'm willing to try. Are you and other A2Kers?

BBB
Definitely count me out, i do believe that advertising be it prescription drugs or oil or feminine hygiene products is a legitimate business practice.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 09:36 am
dys- How come I always agree with you? Although there are some downsides to drug ads, I think that it is none of the government's business.

Going even further, I don't think that an adult should have to have a prescription in order to purchase a medication. The drug should be clearly marked for what it is to be used. If the pharmacies are concerned about lawsuits, the customer could sign a waiver releiving the drugstore of responsibility for improper use of a medication.

I am sick to death to having to go to the doctor much too often, in order to renew medications that I have been taking forever. Every time that I go, I feel that I am being coerced into an exam that I don't need, in order to get the meds that I want. I think that at this point in my life I KNOW when I need to see a doctor.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 11:07 am
Quote:
i do believe that advertising be it prescription drugs or oil or feminine hygiene products is a legitimate business practice.


I don't. This isn't something people can just walk in and buy, as Phoenix pointed out.

And while there is something to be said about people who have been on prescriptions long term to being able to get them refilled without a doctors visit I think making all medicines available that way would be very dangerous.

Mix one little pill with another little pill and you could be dead.

Plus, your body changes and the way it reacts to medicine changes.

Some people could probably do this responsibly but I don't think most people would or could.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 02:57 pm
Dys
Dys, how are prescription drugs different than the hard liquor TV advertising ban. I seem to recall that when beer commericals were allowed, the actors were not allowed to actually drink the beer on TV. Sort of stupid, I think.

BBB
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 03:16 pm
Re: Dys
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Dys, how are prescription drugs different than the hard liquor TV advertising ban. I seem to recall that when beer commericals were allowed, the actors were not allowed to actually drink the beer on TV. Sort of stupid, I think.

BBB
what's sorta stupid is banning beer commercials or prescription drugs. What's really STUPID is disregarding freedom of speech. "WE" have decided that you (the public) must be protected from yourselves is a crock and has no business in a free society, Ralph (unsafe at any speed) Nader can go to hell in a hand-basket as far as I'm concerned.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 04:29 pm
Alcohol and cigarette commercials were severly limited because so many of them were directed solely at teenagers. When advertisers are targeting a general aucience, more adult than teen, then I think they have the right to freedom of speech.

Yes, the ads are horrible and the products being advertised often are more harmful than the disease they are meant to treat; but to deny a company the right to advertise when the ads are aimed at the general public, the Constitutional rights of all of us are being eroded.

The law is for everyone, even for those who are offensive and out for as much money as possible. Besides, advertising really works--just try to convince companies that they can't advertise if their product is unsafe under certain circumstances. It won't work and, for the most part, that is a good thing, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 06:40 pm
Re: foffie
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
foffie, do you think we could start a movement to achieve the goal of banning TV prescription drug advertising? I'm willing to try. Are you and other A2Kers?

BBB


I don't join movements. These tv ads are just an annoyance. So are many people in person. The simple solution is borrow a good book from the library, instead of watching tv. I assume you have a lamp for night reading.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 07:41 am
On TV or the internet, I have found that I can "tune out" the vast majority of ads.......................except fot the AFLAC ads, which I love!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 08:12 am
so easy even a caveman can do it.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 08:20 am
I don't consider paid advertisments to be a free speech issue. Networks routinely reject ads.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 08:23 am
boomerang wrote:
I don't consider paid advertisments to be a free speech issue. Networks routinely reject ads.
Yes I am sure networks do, I am just as sure that government interference/regulation is totally unwarranted.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proposal to restore ban prohibiting prescription drug TV ads
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:34:14