It seems like every time I visit the health clinic, there’s a smartly dressed pharmaceutical representative somewhere in the immediate vicinity. A fun waiting room game can be found in picking out the reps from the patients. (In fact, if I don’t see one, I actually worry about where he/she is.) Skeptic that I am, I also wonder how much of an influence these reps have on what medication my doctor recommends, while the hypocrite in me feels a small surge of glee when I’m handed free samples instead of a pharmacy slip.
Despite my personal feelings, it seems that doctors may also be overwhelmed by the numbers of pharma reps visiting their offices day in and day out. Either that, or the drug companies, feeling the heat from patent challenges and generic competition, are tired of paying them, because according to a post on the Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog last week, major players including Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb are cutting back on their sales forces.
In another drug marketing development, Congress is currently reviewing the FDA’s duties regarding television advertising of pharmaceuticals. The woefully underfunded FDA may be given an increased budget to review those annoying ads — you know, the ones that start with a beautiful beach or a butterfly and end with digestive or bleeding ailments — before they’re aired to consumers. Imagine.
The FDA’s budget is getting high press this year as contaminated drugs and other drug safety issues make regular headlines. While improved facility inspection and drug approval processes are top priority, I believe that advertising oversight is also important. It seems to me that the high level of prescription drug use in the US is partially tied to advertising campaigns that make consumers believe that a drug will make all of their problems disappear.
Despite the reported dip in pharmaceutical representatives from certain big-name manufacturers, it would be wise to increase regulation in this area as well. Some state legislators are pushing to limit the gifts pharmaceutical representatives are allowed to give to doctors, while some US senators are pursuing the provision of objective drug information so that doctors and patients can have unbiased input on what sorts of medications they should take, if any.
Will any of these developments have a profound impact on how pharmaceuticals are prescribed? Overcoming the drug companies’ sometimes misleading and overbearing sales tactics, as well as lobbying efforts, will surely be a big challenge. Whatever the answer, lawmakers and regulators undoubtedly have a role to play in the future of drug companies’ marketing campaigns.
Comments
ed Says:
March 27th, 2008 at 7:17 am
speaking of more regulation, med students are pushing for pharma-free academic centers..
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/03/med-students-and-their-pharma-free-guide/
Kevin Says:
March 27th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Well, goes both ways. If it weren’t for drug reps, doctors would have no idea what new drugs are on the market, and what’s available for which problems. It may disillusion you to know that doctors, being kind of busy, do not sit around all day reading the latest JAMA journal and downloading research studies. Younger docs close to me have told me how horrified they are that older doctors don’t have a clue about drugs or techniques developed in the past 20 years. But of course the doctors love the free food brought round by the cute former cheerleader.
Or we could choose censorship, and make it illegal to provide information about available drugs. That’s Germany’s approach. Keeping people in the dark sure does save money. A lot of Americans seem to like that idea, consumer information being scary and dangerous in the wrong hands and all.
Shaheen Lakhan Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 am
Thanks for the article. Recently an ex-big-time-pharma-rep joined the GNIF Brain Blogger writing team. You can read Mr. Dan Abshear’s articles that expose the system with insider details. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shaheen
Dan Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Published on http://www.brainblogger.com
Your Television as you doctor?
Often, usually on television, one viewing will often at times see an advertisement for some type of medication- usually one involved in a large market disease state and the commercial is sponsored usually by a big pharmaceutical company for a particular network. This is called direct to consumer advertising, and doctors would prefer they did not exist.
Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising, the popularity of the creation of such commercials has greatly increased. The pharmaceutical industry spends around 5 billion annually on this media source now. Normally, the creation of such a commercial becomes visible to the consumer within a year of the drug’s approval, which raises safety concerns. And involves money spent that could be applied to greater uses, according t many, but we are dealing with a corporation here.
The purpose of DTC ads is not education, in my opinion, as others have claimed. Any advertising of any type shares the same objective, which is to increase sales and grow their market and, in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, believing upon research that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition. Furthermore, the FDA has admitted that they are ignorant as far as the content of such DTC ads, in relation to their accuracy and clarity, as well as their effect on the health care system.
DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering.
Disease mongering is the creation of what some believe to be medical flaws, and illustrated by the creators through exaggeration and embellishments through media sources as an avenue for suc propaganda, as is often seen with DTC advertising. Yet the flaws may not be medical, but corporate creations of these questionable human ailments that do not require treatment, possibly, and may be an attempt to develop a particular medical condition to acquire profit. One of my favorite DTCs is the new indication for the use of an anti-depressant for a social disorder. This used to be called introversion, a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. And it is a personality trait, not a medical disease. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is baldness treatments advertised, as another example. Lifestyle meds are not treatment meds for illnesses, and should not be portrayed as such.
Also, DTC ads discuss only one treatment option normally, so it seems, when likely several treatment options exist for authentic medical disorders. This should be left to the discretion of the doctor, as they assess your health, not your television or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not conduct DTC advertising, with the exception of our country and New Zealand.
Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professional remains largely unregulated, yet apparently effective for the DTC creators. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Many, after viewing a DTC ad, seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes things cumbersome for the doctor chosen for such a visit. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative way, because most DTC ads require a prescription request for the viewer (talk to your doctor about….).
Medical information and claims of suggested health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world. Perhaps this will save some over-prescribing, which will benefit everyone in the long term. And the Health Care System can regain control of their purpose, which is far from financial prosperity.
“Do every act of your life as if it were your last.” —- Marcus Aurelius
Dan Abshear
Leave a Comment