Healthy Skepticism Library item: 1678
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
Connolly C.
Drug Marketers Focus on Doctors: Consumer Ads Up -- but Still Secondary
Washington Post 2002 Feb 14
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7256-2002Feb13.html
Full text:
Television advertising of prescription drugs tripled between 1996 and 2000, but the money spent on commercials aimed at consumers paled in comparison to that spent wooing the doctors, a study released yesterday found.
In 2000, the last year for which data were available, drug manufacturers spent nearly $2.5 billion pitching prescription medicines on the air, according to a report in today’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. A handful of blockbuster drugs such as Vioxx, Prilosec and Claritin were the most heavily advertised.
The industry gave $8 billion worth of samples to physicians that same year and spent $4.8 billion on sales visits to hospitals and doctors’ offices.
The marketing of prescription drugs to consumers has become an emotionally charged issue as aging baby boomers grapple with rising medical bills and a plethora of new medications that promise to prolong and improve life.
In the first comprehensive analysis of prescription-drug advertising since the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines on the practice in 1997, a team of researchers in Boston found that 15 percent of the money spent to promote drugs was for consumer advertising, up from 9 percent in 1996.
“Nevertheless, promotion to health-care professionals still accounts for more than 80 percent on the promotion of prescription drugs,” the researchers wrote. The focus on doctors “reinforces the conventional wisdom that physicians are unlikely to prescribe a drug unless they are familiar with it and comfortable prescribing it.”
Although there is no dispute that more people are taking more medicine than ever before, there is disagreement over whether that is a positive trend. Drug companies argue that new medications for illnesses such as diabetes, ulcers and high cholesterol save money in the long run.
“In many cases a medicine is going to be the most cost-effective treatment, a much cheaper alternative than surgery or hospitalization or long-term care,” said Jackie Cottrell, spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America. “And the medication is preferable to the patient.”
Many consumer advocates, however, say the avalanche of ads has prompted Americans to take pills they do not need or that may not be the most appropriate treatment.
“The education of patients — or physicians — is too important to be left to the pharmaceutical industry, with its pseudo-educational campaigns designed, first and foremost, to promote drugs,” said Sidney Wolfe, head of the Public Citizen Health Research Group.
The study’s authors said mass marketing of drugs has benefits and risks. The advantages include improved diagnosis and a better match between a particular therapy and a patient’s needs. On the other hand, ads can trigger inappropriate prescriptions and consume precious time with a physician.
Howard Forman, a health economist at Yale Medical School, said direct-to-consumer ads are a worthwhile form of information and “part of our First Amendment rights.”
“It does need to be regulated to make sure it is truthful and it needs to be counterbalanced,” with information from unbiased sources, he said. “Otherwise the public is only being informed by a very capitalist-driven industry.”
Thomas Abrams, director of the FDA’s division of drug marketing, advertising and communications, said the agency monitors pharmaceutical ads for accuracy and balance. Often the agency will request changes or corrections. There is no requirement that ads be screened by regulators in advance.
