Are TV Pharmaceutical Ads Damaging?

trivialscene asks: "ABC News is carrying an article about a recently published study in the medical research journal Annals of Family Medicine which examined prime time television ads run by pharmaceutical companies. The researchers concluded that the generally ambiguous ads, which appeal almost entirely to emotion rather than fact, tend to confuse viewers. They also suggest that the ads may be creating problems at the doctor's office, as some people might become convinced they need a particular medication and insist on getting it, rather than leaving the decision to trained medical professionals. What do you think about the presence of drug advertisements on television?"

Comments

marketing vs R&D

[lotsofgadgets]

I think the big wake up call should be the fact that Big Pharma is spending more on marketing their drugs than on developing them in the first place.

Re:marketing vs R&D

[chevelle496]

IAAD, and I think you have a very valid point. Most of the drugs advertised on television here in the US are high dollar moneymakers for the pharma companies. In my opinion, this is the biggest problem - the vast majority of the time, much cheaper generic medications which are equivalent (or sometimes superior) in efficacy are available. The ads are just marketing and serve to drive up the already astronomical price of healthcare in the US. Personally, I usually ignore requests and spend a few minutes talking with my patients and explaining to them why "Expensiva" is not the best choice based on side effects, costs, or available randomized controlled trials. Yes, this does take a bit more time, and others might just give in and prescribe, but one of a physician's most important skills is communication.

Re:marketing vs R&D

[AndersOSU]

Ugg, Normally I'm all for slamming big pharma - as a matter of fact let me do that now. I think that the fact that pharma spends more on advertising than R&D (which is true, in spite of GP's shilling comment) is shameful, and that neither consumers, doctors, legislators, nor shareholders should put up with it. And while this may seem like the perfect time to also take a dig at the patent structure - which is badly in need of reform - I don't think the monopoly meme is entirely appropriate here.

While it is true that each pharma company holds a monopoly on the drugs it invents, pharma is in no way a monopolized industry. If dumping money into R&D were so effective another pharma company with the same outrageous profits could do 5x more research, relying solely on academic journals to spread the word, and clean up with their vastly more and superior drugs. Unfortunately, pharma doesn't think (maybe rightly so) that an investment in R&D translates 1:1 into profit. Where, on the other hand, they seem to think (probably erroneously) that an investment in advertising translates more effectively into revenue.

Personally, I think that the solution involves regulating what, when, and how pharma can advertise, and severely regulating the way pharma's sales reps interact with doctors. But hey, as long as they can afford the good lobbiests, none of this will happen, so maybe we really ought to start with some decent lobbying reform.

Re:marketing vs R&D

[Anonymous Coward]

First, riddle me this: When's the last time you saw an ugly rep?

Yep. For the full, eye-opening scoop, do yourself a huge favor -- find a copy of Carl Elliot's article ,"The Drug Pushers", in the April 2006 Atlantic Monthly.

A short excerpt backing up your point:

"Drug reps are still easy to spot in a clinic or hospital, but for slightly different reasons. The most obvious is their appearance. It is probably fair to say that doctors, pharmacists, and medical-school professors are not generally admired for their good looks and fashion sense. Against this backdrop, the average drug rep looks like a supermodel, or maybe an A-list movie star. Drug reps today are often young, well groomed, and strikingly good-looking. Many are women. They are usually affable and sometimes very smart. Many give off a kind of glow, as if they had just emerged from a spa or salon. And they are always, hands down, the best-dressed people in the hospital."

The tricks are amazing.

The reps actually have direct access to the higher-ups on the food chain. If the doc they first presented to doesn't jack up his prescribing rate, he'll hear from above -- the muckey-mucks don't want to be disinvited from the pharma company's "educational" junkets to nice places.

Also, it's illegal for a pharma rep to suggest off-label use of a drug. But the doctors they concentrate on, the decision makers, are free to do so. In fact, they'll often bring up off-label use during the "conferences". Some drugs are prescribed for off-label use far more than for on-label use. Kinda like prescribing birth control pills "to normalize your hormones and get rid of that acne."

Re:marketing vs R&D

[chihowa]

It seems that a good deal of your post boils down to the fact that "doctors are fallible" and "patients should be involved in their own health". I certainly agree with you.

Uninterested doctors who got into medicine for the wrong reasons are a big problem with medicine in my opinion. I'm right there with you on researching drugs and medical conditions on your own, too. I don't recommend being uninvolved in your own health.

But TV commercials, as far as I can tell, don't really contribute any helpful information at all to people. They are largely (like all commercials) empty and unrealistic appeals to people's emotions. While I'm not trying to advocate for a law banning them, I do think that they are a negative and counterproductive activity in terms of society as a whole and the medical profession in specific. I feel that besides becoming informed of the existence of available drugs, basing any sort of health opinion on TV commercials is a big mistake.

A better way to become informed of the existence of new drugs is to [continually research the topic yourself|develop a good relation with a well informed doctor (who will tell you when they find out about them)|ditto with a good pharmacist (much more informed than doctors in many ways concerning drugs)]. Unless you have a compelling reason to be seeking drugs, though, you should always ask yourself if you really need to be taking unnecessary medicine. Unless you're having serious health or quality of life issues, you may be getting solutions to problems that you don't really have from the TV. Starting a regiment of drugs is not (or should not) be something to be undertaken lightly. I mention this because unless you are actively seeking a cure for a disabling disease, you unlikely to first hear about a new drug from a TV ad.

For what it's worth, I'm a chemist working in drug research and I'm appalled at how lightly people take putting unnecessary foreign substances into their bodies.

If not outright damaging, they don't help

[PDMongo]

Every time I see one of those ads I can't help but think that it isn't my job to try and convicen my doctor to prescribe some drug, it is the doctor's job to know what drugs are available and prescribe them to me.

If the drug companies want me to sell my doctor on their particlar product, I should get a commission every time they write me the prescription.

Re:If not outright damaging, they don't help

[yali]

it isn't my job to try and convicen my doctor to prescribe some drug, it is the doctor's job to know what drugs are available and prescribe them to me.

Actually, both of you have a job (though you're totally correct that yours isn't to act as a drug sales rep). What's insidious about this kind of advertising is that it exploits what should be a good trend. The old model of "doctor knows best, do whatever he tells you" isn't ideal. The best case scenario is when a patient becomes informed about his/her health and makes decisions in consultation with the doctor, drawing on the doctor's expertise.

When I was seriously ill a few years back, my doctors (who were outstanding btw) encouraged me to do research on my own. I scoured medical databases and brought that info to my doctors, who helped me sort through it. I think it elevated the quality of my care, and it made me feel like I retained some control over a scary illness.

Unfortunately, by feeding patients information that is biased or misleading and playing to emotion rather than providing useful information, these ads are probably eroding the kind of doctor-patient relationships that everyone should have.

Yes

[ThePolkapunk]

Short answer: Yes. Long Answer: Your doctor is the one who should know about medicine. If he finds out about medication from advertisements on TV, it is time to choose a new doctor. If he finds out about medication from patients who saw advertisements on TV, it is time to choose a doctor. If he will prescribe medication to you based solely upon your request because you saw an advertisement on TV, it is time to choose a new doctor. His knowledge of medication should be completely restricted to facts, such as effects and clinical studies. Any time a doctor is being influenced by an advertisement, whether it be from television or the frequent free catered meals and trips with which pharmaceutical companies bribe doctors, your health is being put in jeapordy.

Bad Idea

[Enderandrew]

We're not doctors. We don't know what is wrong with us. We don't know what we need. We shouldn't be going in and requesting specific drugs. The bad thing is that doctors are only getting so much money to see us because of the HMO system, so they get us in and out as fast as possible. If I ask for a certain drug, more than likely I'm going to get it, regardless of whether or not it is beneficial or harmful to my health.

I also thing as a society we are treating symptoms by developing dependencies on medication rather than fixing problems.

If drug companies can afford every other Super Bowl commercial, and drug reps can throw money at every doctor and pharmacist in the country, maybe they can afford to sell drugs at reasonable prices to third world countries.

George W. Bush (love him or hate him, who am I kidding, everyone hates him) maybe did one thing right. He found American drug companies were charging five times as much for AIDS medications in Africa as they charged here. They openly profitted from people's deaths, and played upon their fears.

And yes, I believe their ads play upon emotions. I'd like to see a ban on drug ads on TV. They can spend the money in better places, like further drug research or third world countries.

Ask your doctor about modding parent up.

[Rob T Firefly]

A friend of mine is a GP, and he is pretty sick and tired of his patients asking him about whatever drug was last advertised while they were watching Oprah and therefore extra suggestible. His standard response is something like "If you want the professional medical opinion of your television, visit it instead of me. You're not buying dishwashing liquid here."

The way I see it...

[djbckr]

I see these heartburn ads on TV and think to myself: These people on the screen are actors, in good health and probably don't get heartburn. The target audience gets heartburn because they eat too much and are overweight.

I know this because I am friends with a general practitioner (been an MD for about 15 years now) and he tells me that people in shape, like the actors in the commercials - in general - don't get heartburn.

I also know this because I was one of those people that got heartburn regularly. Once I started eating properly and getting back in shape, my heartburn disappeared.

Re:The way I see it...

[SydShamino]

I'm generally in shape, and I eat moderately well. The problem has to do with what I eat well.

glass of red wine with dinner = heartburn
tomato sauce on pasta (or any tomato products) = heartburn
hamburger = heartburn
not eating at the correct times = sometimes heartburn (haven't figured this out)

If I eat enough milk fats with any of the above, I dont't get heartburn. Hence, I mix tomato sauce with a little Alfredo sauce, put cheese on the burger and have a glass of milk, and I don't have a problem.

Incidentally, this runs in the familiy. My father is on daily prescription medication and needs the valve at the top of his stomach replaced at some point. My older sister now takes daily over-the-counter medication and is still having problems. Both, like me, are generally in shape. My dad's suffered from it for most of his life, and I've been dealing with it since I was 20 or so.

Re:The way I see it...

[ShieldW0lf]

The researchers concluded that the generally ambiguous ads, which appeal almost entirely to emotion rather than fact, tend to confuse viewers.

This is what all ads do. And yes, ads are damaging. All of them.

WRONG!

[dafz1]

One, new drugs come out ALL of the time. It is impossible for a doctor to know every new drug out there, even with continuing education. These commercials, along with the "pharmaceutical companies bribes" and "pharm babes"(cute drug reps), serve a purpose in educating doctors as well as consumers.

Two, doctors don't know all of the existing drugs before they graduated from medical school, did their residency, etc. They don't have full knowledge of the thousands of drugs that were out there, they were too busy studying where things are in the body, and accepted ways to fix them.

Three, NEVER count on a M.D. for drug information. They have VERY little pharmacology training, and almost no knowledge on drug interactions. That is what pharmacists are for. Doctors prescribe drugs to keep you alive, pharmacists stop them from killing you.

Mod Parent Up

[pkulak]

I have this discussion with people all the time who seem to think that pharma companies have razor-thin margins and spend all their money on R&D. The truth is that their margins are between 20% and 30% and they spend massive amounts of money on marketing. If you want a company with tiny margins and huge R&D expenses, look at AMD, not Phizer.

Re:I hate ambiguous drug ads.

[Red Flayer]

By stating the purpose of the drug, that "extra 5 seconds" suddenly turns into a full minute or two of small print being read to you.

"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball"

Re:Noticed in your sig you like Bill Hicks

[Pojut]

Well, SOME pharmaceutical companies are actually really REALLY good about helping out uninsured people...I'm not going to name names because I am not allowed to (confidentiality agreement when I was hired) but there is one company that I can think of specifically that will investigate what your income is and if it is below a certain level (which is not unreasonably low) and you are uninsured, they will GIVE you the product for free, no questions asked. Unfortunately, the product this is for is not very widely used, as it is made for a rather rare illness.

If I were to suggest a way to help decrease costs and help the uninsured, it would be to introduce government legislation that forced ALL pharma companies to do the same. Of course, this brings up a host of other issues, so that unfortunately is not very feasable.

I hate to say it, but as long as the healthcare industry considers itself a BUISNESS, there really isn't much that can be done. Due to our population in the country, it would be extremely difficult (with the current budget, anyway) to make all healthcare and insurance government ran and provided....again, like I mentioned, with the way the budget is that is nigh impossible. There would need to be serious alterations, and both you and I know it wouldn't happen.

If you asked me to make a somewhat informed however unsubstantiated guess as to how much of an increase we would need, I would say somewhere to the tune of at least 100 billion to 150 billion dollars ON TOP OF what is already allocated. But again, we all know that is not going to happen.

Insurance companies (most), Hospitals (some, not all), Pharmaceutical companies...the entire healthcare industry is a BUISNESS. It's about profit. While there are INDIVIDUALS and certain companies for whom the money is of no importance, the vast majority of the industry considers itself a buisness.

The goal of most buisnesses is to turn as large a profit as possible. Until the industry AS A WHOLE abandons their persuit of profits first, people second....well, I frankly can't think of any amount of change that would do enough to make a difference.

Re:Who cares?

[Noted Futurist]

That "warning" is actually enticement. They warn the viewer that the 4 hour erection is dangerous, so the viewers mind perceives that to mean the 3 hour erections will be just fine.

Who educates doctors?

[Urinal Deuce]

Pharmaceutical companies. Once out of med school, its the marketing machine that kindly informs, holding seminars and the like, our doctors of all the latest advances in their drugs. Its no wonder drugs are over-prescribed.

The *REAL* Problem.....

[IHC Navistar]

No the real problem with tv pharmaceutical ads are the ads that hawk 'supplements'. It has been proven that the products sold as supplements are a bigger danger than the other FDA-approved drugs. When you sell something as a supplement, you cannot be regulated by the FDA. Instead of going after he major drug companies and their advertisements, why not do something that is actually usful and go after the companies that are sellgin 'supplements' that claim to do everything by make you rich.

Yesterday, while I was watching TV, I saw a ton of commercials that were selling 'supplements' such as, among other things:

1. A glue-stick like product that you roll across your forhead to cure headaches (Head On).
2. An ad for pills that claim to boost your memory (Focus Factor).

3. Ads for CortiSlim and TrimSpa, which claim weight loss (but only when used with a 'sensible' diet. Duh!)

4. Magazine and T.V. ads for a bracelet-like device that claims to fix dozens of bone and joint ailments you have (Q-Ray).

5. A spray-on product that claims to cure bone and joint pain (I forgot the name).

This kind of shameless advertising makes the large drug companies look like saints. It is also known that 'supplements' are usually more dangerous than the-r FDA-approved counterparts. What's more is that it is ILLEGAL for the FDA to even make an attempt to regulate these 'drugs', some of which are contain more potent psychoactive chemicals that vary wildly from batch to batch and even box to box. Just because they contain 'all natural' ingredients is clearly deceptive advertising, as the supplement companies make no mention of the unreliability and saftey issues associated with non-FDA approved supplements.

The drug companies actually disclose what can happen with their product and have FDA-approval, including strict testing and guidelines for their use. Supplements have NO OVERSIGHT as to their chemical content. Is it really worth to be whining about the claimed emotional ploys (yes, some really do abuse emotion, while others don't) when other companies are allowed to hawk untested, unregulated, and sometimes dangerous 'supplements' while enjoying full legal protection from authorities and regulators?