When one looks at television, a newspaper or a magazine it is impossible not to be inundated with ads for assorted designate drug medications. This was not all the time the case. In fact, not until 1997, when the Fda issued its guidelines for direct to consumer advertising, did this huge pharmaceutical advertising expenditure begin.
It might interest some to know that only 2 countries in the world allow our brand of direct to consumer advertising of designate drugs: the United State and New Zealand.
Consumer
The amounts of money complicated are staggering. A study done by the Kaiser house Foundation in 2006 found that for every dollar a drug enterprise spent on advertising, it earned in further sales. Doesn't sound like much, does it?
But the real numbers put the impact in prospective. In 1999, just two years after the Fda permitted direct to consumer advertising in its current form, Pfizer spent 55 million advertising it's cholesterol lowering drug, Lipitor. Sales of Lipitor jumped 56% that year to approximately .6 billion.
As advertising spending went up, the number of operate exercised by the Fda fell. Agreeing to the New England Journal of Medicine, the Fda sent 142 violations letters to pharmaceutical clubs in 1997. By 2006 the Fda sent only 21 violation letters.
As revenues from advertising grew, pharmaceutical clubs found new ways to entice consumers to buy their brand. Celebrity advertising was born. Pfizer ran the now infamous commercials featuring Dr. Robert Jarvik promoting Lipitor "as a doctor and a father." As it turned out, Dr. Jarvik was not a licensed medical doctor despite his being the originator of the artificial heart. Dr. Jarvik did have a medical degree from the University of Utah but after earning a medical degree, physicians must complete a series of tests to earn certification to practice medicine.
Reps. John D. Dingell (D-Mi), Chairman of the Committee on vigor and Commerce, and Bart Stupak, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, launched an investigation into the misleading consequent of the ads on consumers which had been beloved by the Fda.
In February 2008 Pfizer agreed to withdraw the Lipitor advertising and promotions featuring Dr. Robert Jarvik. Rep. Dingell stated that "Pfizer's decision was a wise one, and I am pleased our investigation prompted the removal of Lipitor ads featuring Dr. Jarvik. We trust that Pfizer is sincere in its commitment to 'greater clarity' in its advertising. My colleagues and I look send to meeting with Pfizer's supervision team to discuss their plans associated to direct-to-consumer advertising."
The Fda maintains that it continues to oversee direct to consumer advertising by drug clubs to insure that ads are careful balanced and accurate.
The Pharmaceutical research and Manufacturers of America (PhRma) represents the country's important pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies. This trade and lobbying group takes the valid position that the purpose of direct to consumer marketing is to raise outpatient awareness of diseases and treatments that might be available to treat them. Their studies show that direct to consumer advertising brings patients into their doctors' offices and starts important doctor-patient conversations about condition that might otherwise take place.
The drug commerce is mounting major lobbying campaigns to have direct to consumer marketing allowed in Europe and Canada. The condition activity International (Hai-Europe), in December 2001 set forth their mental for lasting to ban direct advertising to consumers of designate drugs. Given the current debate in the United States over condition care reform some of their rationale is quite relevant.
The Hai-Europe gave 4 reasons for lasting the ban on direct to consumer advertising.
1.Direct to consumer advertising drives up designate drugs costs, threatening the sustainability of national condition care services and universal entrance to condition care as a fundamental human right.
2. Direct to consumer advertising fails to inform. It does not provide the impartial, objective information consumers and patients need for informed condition care decisions.
3. Direct to consumer advertising compromises communal safety. It can lead to rapid farranging exposure to hazardous drugs before risks are fully recognized. Additionally, most new drugs are costlier than existing treatments, but few provide any therapeutic advantage.
4. Direct to consumer advertising promotes the medicalisation of normal life. The most heavily advertised drugs are for long-term use by large target audiences, often for mild conditions and 'lifestyle' problems that may not need drug therapy.
The debate will continue but do not look for a turn in the advertising practices of U.S. Drug clubs anytime soon.
Direct consumer Advertising Raises the Cost of prescribe Drugs Consumer
0 comments:
Post a Comment