This is a tough topic, but I think it’s important.
$1 billion per month
Did you know that big pharma spends $1 billion per month on television advertising? Are you surprised? Do you get annoyed with all of the ads for prescription drugs?
Only 2 nations
Only the United State and New Zealand allow pharmaceutical ads on television. For us, the change came about in 1997 when the Federal Drug Administration lifted a ban on advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers. This led to a flood of these ads on our cable and over-the-air channels.
Why allow these ads?
According to Harvard Medical School, the reasons these ads might be helpful are as an opportunity to:
- educate people about conditions and treatments they were unaware of
- improve health by encouraging people to take medications they should be taking
- raise awareness of possible side effects, because regulations require consumers to be referred to a website, magazine, or other source for more information
- lessen stigma surrounding certain conditions, such as mental illness or erectile dysfunction
- increase detection of unrelated diseases if patients are inspired by DTC ads to see their doctors.
But there are drawbacks
Harvard, though, also notes, there are some drawbacks as these ads:
- present incomplete or biased information
- spur people to ask for medications they don’t need
- promote medications before long-term safety is known. In one case, a new pain relief drug was pulled from the market due to an unexpected rise in heart attacks and strokes — but not before millions of people saw the ad and began taking it.
- create conflicts between patients asking for a drug and doctors who don’t recommend it
- drive up healthcare costs without adding health benefits (new drugs are much more expensive than generic drugs that may do the same job, yet cost is rarely mentioned in the ads).
Cost of marketing also increases prices
I also wonder about the $1 billion per month spent on television and in other direct-to-consumer marketing driving up already high drug costs.
Suggestions to watch for
Harvard Medical School suggests you watch for this:
- “A leading treatment for this condition.” Perhaps, but what if there are only two or three drugs available for that condition? When considering any treatment, it’s important to know what the other options are and how they compare, yet it’s unlikely this additional information will be mentioned.
- “No other treatment has been proven better.” This suggests that the advertised drug is great. Yet it might be only as good as — and no better than — older, less expensive, or even over-the-counter competitors. Plus, drug ads are unlikely to mention the option of taking nothing for the condition in question, even though many minor ailments get better on their own.
- “In clinical studies, this medication proved more effective than standard treatment.” So, how good is standard treatment? If a drug helps only 20% of people with a disease and “standard treatment” helps 15%, the added cost and risk of side effects of the new therapy may not prove worthwhile.
- “I don’t care about studies… it works for me” or “This drug gave me my life back.” The power of the anecdote — one person’s story of near-miraculous improvement with a particular treatment — is undeniable. The problem is that studies do matter. Otherwise, we’d all be taking the advice of a proverbial “snake oil salesman” recommending unproven and potentially dangerous drugs because someone said it worked for them. And, of course, in ads promoting drugs or procedures, that “someone” is often a paid actor or spokesperson.
- “For some, one pill is all you need for 24-hour relief.” This sounds good, but how many is “some”? If one in 100 get 24-hour relief, the drug may be less effective than the ad suggests. Also, what does “relief” mean? If a drug reduces pain by 10% for 24 hours, that’s a rather modest benefit; a competitor’s drug might reduce it by 80% or even 100%. These details are often left out of drug ads.
It’s okay to have your own research, but…
While watching television commercials and doing your own research about conditions online is fine, it is incredibly important to have health care providers you can trust. I really think they are the best guides for your health. Even here in Eureka Springs, AR, kind of a medical Siberia, I am happy with my own primary healthcare provider and the specialists I have found in the larger towns of Northwest Arkansas.