Healthy Skepticism Library item: 20156

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

Maling N
Drug advertising costs hard to swallow
Sunday Star Times 2000 Nov 19A6

Full text:

Three drug advertising campaigns have cost the taxpayer $7.4 million in one year.

The figure is contained in a submission by the drug funding agency Pharmac, to a review of direct-to-consumer drug advertising ordered by Health Minister Annette King last month.

King has signalled a possible ban on drug advertising, such as that for weight-loss drug Xenical, following fears it creates an artificial image of a drug’s effectiveness, increases consumer demand and affects the relationship between doctors and patients.

Pharmac’s submission, released under the Official Information Act, says drug companies spent $13.99m on television advertising of medicines between October and September this year.

It uses the examples of asthma drug Flixotide, cholesterol-lowering drug Zocor and antifungal agent Lamisil, all of which have been advertised on television.

When $1.69m was spent advertising Flixotide, there was a 62% increase in dispensing the drug between June last year and June this year, at a cost of more than $2m.

In the same period, $540,000 was spent on TV advertising for Zocor and the volumes dispensed increased 136% – a cost of $4.6m – although during the same period, the drug became subsidised and therefore free to patients.

Roughly the same amount was spent on Lamisil and volumes leapt 39% at a cost of $770,000.

“These are three examples of subsidised products advertised directly to consumers, the result of which has meant additional government expenditure of $7.4m in one year. These examples show the detrimental effect [direct-to-consumer] advertising has on the pharmaceutical budget”, the submission says. It argues that the advertising often encourages consumers to switch from older, cheaper medicines to new, expensive ones which are no more effective.

But Researched Medicines Industry communications manager Crystal Beavis said that of the 17 drugs advertised on TV 10 were not subsidised by Pharmac and therefore had no flow-on cost to the taxpayer.

“There is a health benefit in this advertising. If some of this costs Pharmac more, there is an arguement to say there is a greater need out there than [health authorities] have recognised when they set their budgets”.

But Pharmac argues the advertising of non-subsidised medicines is used by drug companies to create demand for a subsidy. In two cases, drugs have been advertised and later put forward for a subsidy.

One of the biggest fears about drug advertising is that it does not adequately represent drug side effects. Pharmac’s submission includes the findings of a survey conducted by Colmar Brunton last month of a print advertisement for Diane-35, an acne drug drug and contraceptive. The survey found that after reading the ad one in four of the 200 women surveyed through it clearly stated the risks and side effects of taking the drug even though the ad did not explicitly state risks and side-effects.