Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19100

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Silverman E
Should Congress Change The Rules On DTC Ads?
Pharmalot 2011 Feb 10
http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/should-congress-changes-the-rules-on-dtc-ads/

Full text:

The floodgates opened in 1997. That was when the FDA decided to allow direct-to-consumer advertising on television, initiating a great debate about the virtues of such DTC ads for prescription drugs between drugmakers, doctors and patients that, eventually, embroiled legislators, ad agencies and First Amendment lawyers.
Why? Doctors have been angry that patients were incorrectly pressuring them for prescriptions. Other critic complained that ads minimized risks, steered patients toward expensive meds and promoted unnecessary usage. Pharma, meanwhile, has pointed out that ads successfully enlighten consumers and drive them to learn more about their health, sometimes having meaningful discussions with docs.
Now, though, TV ads may have reached a watermark. Why? Writing in The New York Times, former Merck lobbyist Ian Spatz writes that these ads have simply become too expensive in an era when continued cost cutting is a priority and the biggest sellers face low-cost generic compeition. Drugmakers, he writes, are “stuck” with them and often buy ads “merely to blunt” the competition.
“In addition, many drug company chief executives recognize that the FDA’s 1997 decision to allow the ads has, inadvertently, caused the public to view the industry as focused no longer on research but on sales – and made patients ask whether the companies are more concerned with profits than with safety,” he notes. This is certainly not a new lament, but Ian does not reveal when ceo’s caught on.
So what does he suggest? He proposes allowing Congress to pass legislation “that would allow drug companies to cooperate with one another, and with physician and patient organizations, to develop joint ad campaigns that are specific to certain diseases and conditions but not to any particular drug. These ads would inform consumers about the disease; its treatment options, including pharmaceuticals; and how to gain further information not biased toward any particular brand.”
The upside, in his view, is that drugmakers could save money; the public would be “spared the assault” of ad campaigns that, he concedes, contain “often unintelligble warnings” about side effects along with “cloying images.” What would be left? “Unbiased information about the medical conditions we care about, and encouragement to seek out the medicines and vaccines that can help us maintain and improve our health” (here is the complete op-ed).
For those of you concerned with the anti-trust implications, Ian points to the Capper-Volstead Act, which he maintains offers an “explicit legal exception” to federal antitrust laws for agricultural producers who are allowed to jointly market their products (you can read about it here). By using this model, he believes the feds would be able to ensure that price-fixing does not ensue. Presumably, he has vetted this with the folks at Manatt, Phelps & Phelps, a law firm that reps some drugmakers and where he serves as a consultant. What do you think?