Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13964

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: report

Choice
Pushing Pills
Marrickville, NSW: Choice 2008 May
http://www.choice.com.au/files/f133143.pdf

Abstract:

Executive summary

When correctly prescribed, pharmaceuticals provide enormous benefits to consumers.
The pharmaceutical industry has provided valuable medicines to the world which have
contributed to increasing life expectancy and improved health outcomes. However, used
incorrectly or inappropriately, pharmaceuticals have the potential to cause significant harm.

As consumers, we want those entrusted with our health to prescribe medicines based on
the best independent information available. Pharmaceutical marketing, like all marketing, is
intended to increase the use of a particular medicine or promote its use over an alternative.
This makes good business sense for pharmaceutical companies because it increases the
bottom-line. However, the information they provide to consumers, doctors and others is not
independent.

There is strong evidence to indicate that pharmaceutical promotion is not in the best
interests of consumers. It can lead to inappropriate prescribing practices which expose
consumers to unnecessary risk. It also may not be in the interests of taxpayers. Taxpayers
fund much of the cost of prescription drugs through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
(PBS). Unnecessary or inappropriate use of medicines, particularly the more costly brand
name drugs, places pressure on this scheme.

In this report, CHOICE discusses briefly the various ways pharmaceuticals are promoted
to doctors. We go on to examine advertising in doctors’ publications over a 12-month
period and look more closely at drugs used to treat high blood pressure.

The findings of our study demonstrate some of the biases in pharmaceutical advertising which
make it a poor source of information for doctors. Promotion is focused on medicines which are
newer and more expensive but not necessarily more effective. Medicines which are out of patent,
regardless of their effectiveness, are generally not promoted. Some advertisements contain images
which present an unrealistic impression of the effectiveness of the medicine. The argument that
these images provide important information to doctors is dubious.

We want an increase in unbiased and independent information for doctors about
available treatment options. Better information will lead to better prescribing practices.
Consumers will not be exposed to unnecessary risk from the inappropriate use of drugs and
savings could be made to the PBS.

The National Prescribing Service (NPS) currently provides some independent information
to doctors, including a small program of educational visiting. A substantial expansion in the
NPS’s activities should be funded by government, offset by a one-off reduction in the prices
paid to pharmaceutical companies through the PBS. Pharmaceutical companies should be
expected to reduce their promotional activities as a result of the reduction in revenue.