Prescription drugs are only advertised on tv in the USA and New Zewlan

[mattw]

i was amazed when i heard this. the majority of first world nations dont allow it. i cant image tv without ads for prescription drugs. oh well, that would just mean more air time for autos and fast food. is it possibly due to most nations have national health care coverage? does canada or britian have asprin commercials?

perscription drugs in the US are too much of a big business. they have congressmen in their pockets and i think to an extent the FDA(food and drug administion for our overseas readers).

the airing of scripts ads promotes their use and increases their cost. so everytime some hypokondriak(sp lol sound it out) sees an ad for xyz and thinks i might have that, i need to get a script. we know that americans are over medicated. this is due to the prescrition drug mfgs' insisting that we need it and doctors who are too willing to be paid to write the scripts.

granted, scripts are a good thing for people who need them. i think the whole system has been perverted.

[MrWookie]

When I learned that the advertising budgets of big pharmas have outstripped their R&D budgets, I was pretty sure that something is wrong. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that companies should be forbidden from marketing their product, assuming it does what they say it does. If Ford can do it, why not GSK? Really, I think that the mass marketing of drugs is one of a many number of things wrong with US health care. Some more things that are wrong:

Health insurance in general. According to my best understanding, the US spends more per capita than most if not all countries on health care, but our standards are not the best. Something is broken here, and I'm not sure what. One would think that if there was a more efficient HMO out there that offered better service for a lower cost, people would flock to it and that company would be quite profitable, forcing the other companies to improve in order to compete. However, it would appear that offering bad service is so immensely profitable that all the companies seem to prefer to skimp on service for their base rather than trying to steal customers from their competitors by doing a better job. Something isn't right here.

Patent law in general. The drug companies say that we need to keep patent law as is or else their profits won't offset the high R&D costs for making a new drug. This argument would hold more water with me if R&D was actually the #1 expense of drug companies. Instead, it's marketing. Patents were originally intended to help the little guy break into the market with a good product rather than being immediately crushed by the bigger and likely more efficient competition. Instead, the patents of the little guy get bought up by the big guy, landing one fat paycheck for the little guy, less competition for the big guy, and higher prices for us. The high drug prices we're facing are probably more affected by patent law than they are by the marketing. I'd probably push for a reformed patent system instead of laws against marketing if I really wanted lower drug prices. However, fat chance of that ever happening.

[KilgoreTrout]

Show me a product that wouldn't be cheaper if its marketing budget were hacked.

Of greater concern are the ads for pseudoceuticals (Enzyte is the most glaring example) that mimic pharma ads. Direct to consumer advertisements are regulated by FDA for drugs, medical devices, biologics, and some cosmetics and foods that make health claims. Pseudoceuticals hide behind the "dietary supplement" facade, are unregulated (you'll see a tiny disclaimer that says "these statements have not been evaluated by FDA, not intended to treat or cure a disease or affect a body function or structure") and are the equivalent to snake oil elixers in terms of proving efficacy.

Recall the Q-Ray bracelet ads of a few years ago that claimed the hunk of junk helped with arthritis, depression, etc. Now look at the Q ray ads today - they make no claims other than "Making you feel better." Well, in a sense wearing any kind of jewelry can make someone feel better, I suppose.

edit to add: Wookie, if you ever get seriosly ill I sincerely hope you are lucky enough to be in the US when it happens. Our healthcare is the best in the world, bar none. I for one am happy to pay for it (along with my employer, I suppose).

For full disclosure, I am an R&D engineer for a medical device manufacturer.

Another edit: as consumers of health care products we bear some responsibility for the choices we make. I choose to enroll my family in the Blue Cross PPO offered by my employer's benefits package. It costs quite a bit more to me each pay period but the flexibility the plan provides is worth it to me. I don't need referrals to see particular specialists.

My wife was recently diagnosed with MS. She is now being treated by one of the best MS docs in the US, and possibly the world. If I had an HMO I'd be stuck with the plan's doc. Instead, we asked her neurologist who he would send his wife to see. I made some phone calls and she is now under the care of the best. That would not happen overseas.

another edit, postcount be damned:
The regulatory pathway for new drugs is daunting and very expensive. The process takes years if not decades. The real problem I see is that drug manufacturers make decisions solely on ROI rather than developing the best drugs to treat the most diseases.

Research the history of Viagra, for example. Pfizer were trying to develop a blood pressure med. One of their Phase 1 studies reported that males in the group got raging erections after ingesting the compound, and the boner drug was born. Screw that hypertension drug, folks, there's buckets of money to be made getting it up.

So I think the real argument against "big drug companies" is that, given the choice between a relatively quick buck and a revolutionary treatment for a challenging disease, the firms go with the dollar signs. After all, a guy with ED can buy your product for many years, but the kid with end-stage cancer won't be a customer for long. I feel pangs of nausea for having typed that.

[MrWookie]

Oh, I'll definitely agree with you that the whole dietary supplement market could use some FDA oversight. There's some serious quackery going on there, and people buy into it.

[vbm]

We have Asprin commercials in the UK and for non prescription drugs.

The way it works over here we go to the Dr who prescribes drugs, we then go and pay the pharmacist £5 ($10) for what ever we need. There is no real point to advertise under this system