Slashdot Mirror
AMA Calls For Ban On Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs (ap.org)
HughPickens.com writes: The Associated Press reports that the American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs and implantable medical devices, saying they contribute to rising costs and patients' demands for inappropriate treatment. According to data cited in an AMA news release, ad dollars spent by drugmakers have risen to $4.5 billion in the last two years, a 30 percent increase. Physicians cited concerns that a growing proliferation of ads is driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives. "Today's vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices," said the AMA's Patrice A. Harris. "Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."
The AMA also calls for convening a physician task force and launching an advocacy campaign to promote prescription drug affordability by demanding choice and competition in the pharmaceutical industry, and greater transparency in prescription drug prices and costs. Last month, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report saying that a high cost of prescription drugs remains the public's top health care priority. In the past few years, prices on generic and brand-name prescription drugs have steadily risen and experienced a 4.7 percent spike in 2015, according to the Altarum Institute Center for Sustainable Health Spending.
The AMA also calls for convening a physician task force and launching an advocacy campaign to promote prescription drug affordability by demanding choice and competition in the pharmaceutical industry, and greater transparency in prescription drug prices and costs. Last month, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report saying that a high cost of prescription drugs remains the public's top health care priority. In the past few years, prices on generic and brand-name prescription drugs have steadily risen and experienced a 4.7 percent spike in 2015, according to the Altarum Institute Center for Sustainable Health Spending.
R&D costs are 10% and manufacturing is often negligible, so marketing costs (direct and indirect) are nearly 90%.
That's all waste that we are paying for. Marketing doesn't add value to a product. Most countries have figured that out and banned it.
Hey dumbass, there's a mute button on your remote. Learn to use it. Better yet turn off the fucking television when you have dinner with your family.
I'm a conservative libertarian but this is still ridiculous. Why allow drug companies to spend millions (and pass that on to consumers) advertising something that consumers cannot get directly.
There are alot of things that need to change about our healthcare system but this is one. The only case where consumers should be allowed to override their doctors concerns about drugs and treatments is in cases where there is substantial loss of quality of life involved. When doctors invoke the "do no harm" clause to keep someone from accessing experimental treatments or drugs when that person is terminal or in severely degraded quality of life, its ridiculous. The doctor should be required to pass on knowledge of the risk involved, but should not be allowed to deny access.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Its a free country, let them advertise.
Being a free country doesn't mean we should do whatever stupid thing pops into our head. There are lots of reasons why we shouldn't allow such advertising.
1) These advertising costs get passed on to patients (read you and me). While I can only speak for myself I have NO interest in paying for advertising for the medicine I am consuming.
2) Furthermore this sort of advertising creates all sorts of bad incentives for patients to ask about medicines that may not be appropriate for their condition. Most people without medical training demonstrably do not understand what these drugs do nor do they understand the side effects.
3) Trust me that the doctors are already getting pestered by drug company representatives. Patients asking for medicines too serves no useful societal purpose. It's just drug companies co-opting patients to do marketing for them.
If people are too stupid to listen to their doctor, they deserve to die.
No they do not. Just because someone isn't very bright doesn't mean they deserve to die. The entire reason we require prescriptions is because people are easily swayed by fancy marketing and pseudo-science (see homeopathy) for things that don't work or even are harmful.
I'm a conservative libertarian but...
From your response, it's clear that you're not. And there's no shame in shaking free of the shackles of poor ideology - or any ideology, really.
Reality is pragmatic, combining good ideas from various philosophies. Be proud to want what works, rather than sticking to labels and ghettoizing yourself into a group just to feel like you belong.
If my doctor doesn't already know whether X is right for me, then I need to get a new doctor.
Agreed. On top of that what bothers me is the sales hook:
"Do you have symptoms that include being nervous when in complicated social situations?"
"Does your skin sometimes itch?"
"Do you experience shortness of breath after running marathons?"
They frequently describe circumstances that are so vague they apply to pretty much every self-diagnosing hypocondriac on the planet. Might as well ask "are you a fool with money you need to be parted from?" Up here in Canada, direct-to-proto-patient marketing is illegal. Strangely we're not all dying because we haven't heard of some med. Also, our meds are typically cheaper than in the US.
"Oh no... he found the
A very strong case can be made for Doctors not even prescribing specific drugs. Even the best docs don't really know the drugs that well, but pharmacists do. Doctors should do the diagnosing of the issue(s) and if they wish to use a pharmaceutical treatment send the information to the pharmacist and let them consult with the patient and choose the appropriate drug(s) and dosage. This is especially important when dealing with multiple medications from multiple specialists. Pharmacists are by far the most under-appreciated medical professionals.
And, by whim, you mean actually checking that the pharma company isn't lying through their teeth about the products?
There's been enough public instances showing these companies will paint an overly rosy picture of how good a drug is, downplay the incidence of side effects, and otherwise manipulate the data to give desired outcomes.
So, boo fucking hoo ... compliance is how we have at least some confidence these guys aren't lying their asses off to sell a product which doesn't actually provide the benefits they claim, or which is far more likely to kill you than they claim.
I don't trust big pharma to ever be honest or have anything but their own profits as a priority. Not even a little.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The only case where consumers should be allowed to override their doctors concerns about drugs and treatments is in cases where there is substantial loss of quality of life involved.
The knock on effects of doing this are worse for society than the problem you are trying to correct. The problem is that you hurt our ability to determine if our experimental treatments actually work.
When doctors invoke the "do no harm" clause to keep someone from accessing experimental treatments or drugs when that person is terminal or in severely degraded quality of life, its ridiculous.
Because when the patient takes that treatment that does harm them or doesn't fix the problem (just like the doctor promised it would) then the doctor gets to spend some lovely time in a court room. But that's not the worst thing. If it was just some extra lawsuits we could deal with that. No, THE worst thing is that by doing what you propose we badly hurt our ability to get people into clinical trials to find out if medicines actually work. The simple fact is that to find out if drugs work we have to do trials. This necessarily means that some people are going to die so that more may live. You cannot find out if the treatments actually and objectively work if you allow everyone to get access to experimental treatments in pursuit of improved quality of life. By advocating for free access to experimental unproven treatments you are unintentionally advocating for eliminating our ability to determine scientifically if treatments actually work.
I think your sense of compassion is admirable but you shouldn't forget about who will be unintentionally hurt by your actions. We all want to help the person we see suffering in front of us but we shouldn't forget the others who will suffer in the future if we act irresponsibly today.
Medicine already has competition: churches, faith healers, supplement companies, homeopathy.
And the competition is doing very well. What good is competition when consumers are desperate and sick? If your wife or kid were to get seriously sick and the doctors in the ER tell you that she needs some expensive treatment and she'll die without it, are you gonna say, "Well, let me think about it and call around to see if I can get a better price"?
The problem with competition in medical care is that the people who need it most are least capable of making informed decisions.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It is not only television. Take a look at Readers Digest some time. If you removed just the full page advertising and only those full pages with advertising on both sides of the page, the magazine would be about a third of the published thickness. I see this in all print magazines and have now stopped subscribing.
"the profit motive itself pretty much makes a mockery of the practice of medicine in general."
Because medical professionals should go through years of schooling and accumulate massive amounts of debt so that they can donate their time? Because drug companies should develop new treatments out of scientific curiosity, and medical device manufacturers should be volunteer organizations?
For profit companies provide the overwhelming majority of the goods and services you use on a regular basis and you typically have an array of choices and various price/quality options. The ONLY reason healthcare is so screwed up is that the government decided to stick it's fat nose into the mix. Since the advent of Medicare & Medicaid, costs have absolutely skyrocketed while quality of results has stagnated. You won't find a similar result anywhere in a profit-driven free market. Only government can engineer such a disaster.
Hey dumbass. There's an "engage" button on your brain. Learn to use it. I know, I know it hurts like hell, but your really need to take the time to understand the things you read. The medical community, in what I must say is a rather surprising move, is telling us that the over-the-top marketing of expensive prescription drugs is a bad thing for their patients. They should know, better than Big Pharma, better than government "regulators" who've allowed this mess to happen, and certainly better than you.
I'm talking about competition in real medicine,...Yes, we need exactly the ability to call around and get a better price.
I don't see how that could possibly work. As someone with a family of 5, almost all of my encounters with the US medical system are along the lines of "OMG, we have to go to the hospital NOW." or "your {relative} had an accident, and was taken to {hospital X}" (which is almost always the nearest one physically capable of performing the required service). Nowhere in there is a good opportunity (and sometimes any opportunity at all) to shop around for a better ambulance service or emergency health provider.
This is what economists call a "captive market". In such a market, there can be no real competition. Everything is a "take it or leave it" proposition. Against life-or-death choices, that's no choice at all. So this pretend "free market" ends up just being a system to allow providers to make however much they think their unfortunate users can afford.
Yes, for non-emergency things its different, but its the emergency services that are costing all the money.
In general you physically can't have a free market in health care. Basic economics says its not an option.