Marketing Medicine

[GGT]

The US has so many commercials and adverts for sick people. Private hospitals for cancer treatment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_...ers_of_america, private facilities for addictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passages_Malibu

And that doesn't begin to address the adverts for prescription pharmaceuticals. TV ads for erectile dysfunction meds, Insulin pens, Diabetic shakes, cholesterol meds, meds to enhance anti-depressants, A-fib anti-coagulants (not related to heart valve dysfunction), pocket urinary catheters, Hover 'Rounds....

I doubt it looks the same way across the pond. Gosh, how can you be sure you're getting proper medical care?

[earthJoker]

Commercials for medicine only available on prescription are not allowed here. Commercials of over-the-counter medicine need to include a warning.

[Lewkowski]

GGT I get the impression you wish people didn't have freedom of speech when you find it distasteful.

[Dreadnaught]

Properly done, marketing is an efficient way to let people know about the types of treatment available. At it's best, marketing is just another type of information.

It's not as if people can buy prescription drugs on their own. I don't see why doctor's should hold "all the cards", if you will. If someone sees an ad and wants to ask their doctor about it, more power to them.

[GGT]

Commercials for medicine only available on prescription are not allowed here. Commercials of over-the-counter medicine need to include a warning.

Diabetic shakes were the only OTC product in my post, everything else requires a prescription. I'm assuming your doctors also prescribe those things....and your sick folks are still getting high quality medical care....without heavy advertising/marketing to the public? Did the Swiss limit commercials for ethical reasons, or to control pharmaceutical pricing?

Properly done, marketing is an efficient way to let people know about the types of treatment available. At it's best, marketing is just another type of information.

It's not as if people can buy prescription drugs on their own. I don't see why doctor's should hold "all the cards", if you will. If someone sees an ad and wants to ask their doctor about it, more power to them.

"Properly done" is the meat of the discussion. Print advertisements for Rx have been around for decades, with actual patient information, and tons of small print warnings and disclosures. Since the slow demise of print newspapers and magazines, the pharmaceutical industry moved their marketing campaign to TV/cable, and e-media. And since new rules were set for drug reps marketing directly to physicians (because it was more like bribery)....they've moved to marketing directly to the patient.

There have been limits on TV adverts for infant formula for decades, mostly as voluntary industry agreements, because it's regarded as 'medical food'. Not spending billions in marketing/advertising also makes it affordable globally, especially in dirt poor nations, without forcing US babies to bear the brunt. <Enter the Insurance Industry.>

I think this is more about the Pharmaceutical industry 'holding all the cards', and using physicians and patients as patsies for profit. Because they know people like anything new and shiny, and will run to their doctor with demands. That's how our antibiotic debacle started -- wearing down providers until they simply caved, and wrote the script. Affordability and medical necessity be damned. <Enter the Insurance Industry.>

[earthJoker]

Diabetic shakes were the only OTC product in my post, everything else requires a prescription. I'm assuming your doctors also prescribe those things....and your sick folks are still getting high quality medical care....without heavy advertising/marketing to the public? Did the Swiss limit commercials for ethical reasons, or to control pharmaceutical pricing?

The reason why they need prescription in the first place are the side effects of the drug. Those drugs can be potentially dangerous. BTW the EU has a very similar law as we have.

[Lewkowski]

Diabetic shakes were the only OTC product in my post, everything else requires a prescription. I'm assuming your doctors also prescribe those things....and your sick folks are still getting high quality medical care....without heavy advertising/marketing to the public? Did the Swiss limit commercials for ethical reasons, or to control pharmaceutical pricing?

Do the Swiss have a first amendment that protects freedom of speech? (I actually have no clue what the Swiss have for a government).

Because even if it can be proven that marketing medicine is 100% harmful to society... IT SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN LIBERTY!

[GGT]

eJ, do the Swiss need scripts for Hover 'Rounds (or other medical devices) so their health insurance covers most/all of the costs?

Do the Swiss have a first amendment that protects freedom of speech? (I actually have no clue what the Swiss have for a government).

Because even if it can be proven that marketing medicine is 100% harmful to society... IT SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN LIBERTY!

Our 1st Amendment isn't absolute, ya know. TV advertising isn't allowed for tobacco products any longer, and until recently hard liquor and spirits had restrictions, too.

[Ominous Gamer]

100% harmful to society... IT SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN LIBERTY!

talk about a fucked up view on life

[Dreadnaught]

"Properly done" is the meat of the discussion. Print advertisements for Rx have been around for decades, with actual patient information, and tons of small print warnings and disclosures. Since the slow demise of print newspapers and magazines, the pharmaceutical industry moved their marketing campaign to TV/cable, and e-media. And since new rules were set for drug reps marketing directly to physicians (because it was more like bribery)....they've moved to marketing directly to the patient.

There have been limits on TV adverts for infant formula for decades, mostly as voluntary industry agreements, because it's regarded as 'medical food'. Not spending billions in marketing/advertising also makes it affordable globally, especially in dirt poor nations, without forcing US babies to bear the brunt. <Enter the Insurance Industry.>

I think this is more about the Pharmaceutical industry 'holding all the cards', and using physicians and patients as patsies for profit. Because they know people like anything new and shiny, and will run to their doctor with demands. That's how our antibiotic debacle started -- wearing down providers until they simply caved, and wrote the script. Affordability and medical necessity be damned. <Enter the Insurance Industry.>

Is Internet advertising somehow less informative? I would argue it's vastly more informative and useful, as people who see/click on an ad can actually go research the condition or drug being advertised. But I think you're giving undue (or perhaps not enough) credit to patients and doctors. Doctors haven't been overprescribing antibiotics because of advertising; they've been overprescribing because they've fallen into that habit.

Not to mention I don't see prescription antibiotic ads too often/at all.

[GGT]

Is Internet advertising somehow less informative? I would argue it's vastly more informative and useful, as people who see/click on an ad can actually go research the condition or drug being advertised. But I think you're giving undue (or perhaps not enough) credit to patients and doctors. Doctors haven't been overprescribing antibiotics because of advertising; they've been overprescribing because they've fallen into that habit.

Not to mention I don't see prescription antibiotic ads too often/at all.

Internet and e-media can be very informative when 'properly done' (with links to more information), but not necessarily when it's being used to stream TV/cable on devices. You've said you don't personally watch much TV, but it's broadcast in all sorts of public places, from airports to restaurants, along with the commercials. There's been a flood of pharmaceutical TV marketing the last few years, in case you hadn't noticed.

My mention of Ab over-use relates to patient/consumer demands that became drivers, and doctors falling into the 'habit' of appeasing the patient and/or pharmaceutical companies. That attitude crept its way into the system, with expensive consequences -- not just for our "Take a Pill" culture or Ab resistant bugs -- but insurance prescription benefits (with $10 co-pays) that paid for new, brand-name, expensive meds instead of generics. *That's partly a side effect of our patent process.*

This marketing doesn't come cheap. I'm not convinced it's a great idea to "subsidize" important, revolutionary, or very expensive medicines by hawking other medicines that are basically convenience or cosmetic oriented.

[Lewkowski]

Our 1st Amendment isn't absolute, ya know. TV advertising isn't allowed for tobacco products any longer, and until recently hard liquor and spirits had restrictions, too.

The tyranny of the majority is a terrible thing. You think getting rid of advertising for tobacco is a good thing so you don't care whose freedom it harms. All you care about is your world view not on weather or not the government should make the decision in the first place! The government that we allow to make this decision can then limit other forms of speech and we will let them! Hell we'll get to the point where we'll have government limit POLITICAL speech... oh wait we already have that and you want to take it a step further. Your disregard for liberty and freedom sadden me because your attitude is so prevalent in the world today.

[earthJoker]

Do the Swiss have a first amendment that protects freedom of speech? (I actually have no clue what the Swiss have for a government).

We don't have amendments, only articles. And yes there is an equivalent, Article 16 of the constitution:

Art. 16
Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit
1
Die Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit ist gewährleistet.
2
Jede Person hat das Recht, ihre Meinung frei zu bilden und sie ungehindert zu äus-
sern und zu verbreiten.
3
Jede Person hat das Recht, Informationen frei zu empfangen, aus allgemein zu-
gänglichen Quellen zu beschaffen und zu verbreiten.

As you can see it clearly speaks about persons. Companies doing commercials are not covered by this.

BTW TV stations or newspapers may inform about drugs, there is no problem in doing so, they are just not allowed to take money from the producing company while doing so.

Because even if it can be proven that marketing medicine is 100% harmful to society... IT SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN LIBERTY!

What about saying fuck in US public TV? Over here there is no problem in doing so. And showing nipples is also allowed.

And what about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Edward Manning). Are they covered by the 1st amendment too?

[Dreadnaught]

Internet and e-media can be very informative when 'properly done' (with links to more information), but not necessarily when it's being used to stream TV/cable on devices. You've said you don't personally watch much TV, but it's broadcast in all sorts of public places, from airports to restaurants, along with the commercials. There's been a flood of pharmaceutical TV marketing the last few years, in case you hadn't noticed.

My mention of Ab over-use relates to patient/consumer demands that became drivers, and doctors falling into the 'habit' of appeasing the patient and/or pharmaceutical companies. That attitude crept its way into the system, with expensive consequences -- not just for our "Take a Pill" culture or Ab resistant bugs -- but insurance prescription benefits (with $10 co-pays) that paid for new, brand-name, expensive meds instead of generics. *That's partly a side effect of our patent process.*

This marketing doesn't come cheap. I'm not convinced it's a great idea to "subsidize" important, revolutionary, or very expensive medicines by hawking other medicines that are basically convenience or cosmetic oriented.

I see pharma ads online all the time. But it's nonsense to state that advertising is at fault for overuse of antibiotics. We give antibiotics to fracking cows, it's not as if ads caused that.

[Lewkowski]

What about saying fuck in US public TV? Over here there is no problem in doing so. And showing nipples is also allowed.

And what about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Edward Manning). Are they covered by the 1st amendment too?

You can say fuck on TV just not certain channels (which is bull shit and I detest btw). Ditto with nipples - you can see that on HBO any day. Again not happy about obscenity restrictions however at least folks who want to see programming with language and tits have that option its not completely banned like GGT wants to do with advertising medicine. What's next not marketing fast food to kids? Yup liberals are already after McDonalds for that too.

Edit: But god forbid we put more of an emphasis on athletics in schools...

[earthJoker]

AFAIK HBO is not public, you need to subscribe to see it.

[Lewkowski]

AFAIK HBO is not public, you need to subscribe to see it.

The point is there isn't an outright ban of nudity on TV. GGT would prefer an outright ban on most types of marketing for medicine.

[GGT]

I see pharma ads online all the time. But it's nonsense to state that advertising is at fault for overuse of antibiotics. We give antibiotics to fracking cows, it's not as if ads caused that.

Way to misread my post. I said patient/consumer demands became main drivers....replacing medical necessity or prudent use of Ab that physicians are accountable for. An unintended consequence of our pop-a-pill culture, but also heavy marketing from pharmaceutical companies -- first to the medical community, now increasingly aimed directly at the patient. Same phenomenon exists in our animal food chain over-using hormones or Ab to boost production, and creating negative consequences that veterinarians and breeders are responsible for.

I think we should look at the Big Picture regarding medicine and pharmaceuticals, how they're marketed and to whom, and if there's some way to separate pure greed from 'legitimate' profit. I also wonder how much of this is due to reduced funding for government R & D, causing the need to sell convenience/cosmetic drugs, in order to pay for expensive life-saving drugs.

The point is there isn't an outright ban of nudity on TV. GGT would prefer an outright ban on most types of marketing for medicine.

You're the one who mentioned a ban, not I. I'm interested in finding ways that make medicines more affordable for more patients, continues government funding for important R & D, and reduces spending on things like expensive marketing. (It's also unseemly to sell prescriptions like lipstick.)

This isn't about Free Speech. Your Insurance Industry Employee sour grapes are probably related to anger that the PPACA requires health insurance carriers to spend 80% of consumer premiums on actual health care, not administrative overhead or marketing. Should I call the whaaambulance?

[Dreadnaught]

If we have doctors mis-prescribing medicines just because their patients see an ad and ask a question, I think the problem is with doctors. Or are you part of the "videogames cause violence and should be banned" crowd?

[Ominous Gamer]

If we have doctors mis-prescribing medicines just because their patients see an ad and ask a question, I think the problem is with doctors. Or are you part of the "videogames cause violence and should be banned" crowd?

You act as if doctors aren't people who are subject to the same ad pushes. There are good reasons why gifts to doctors are restricted.

[Lewkowski]

You're the one who mentioned a ban, not I. I'm interested in finding ways that make medicines more affordable for more patients, continues government funding for important R & D, and reduces spending on things like expensive marketing. (It's also unseemly to sell prescriptions like lipstick.)


This isn't about Free Speech. Your Insurance Industry Employee sour grapes are probably related to anger that the PPACA requires health insurance carriers to spend 80% of consumer premiums on actual health care, not administrative overhead or marketing. Should I call the whaaambulance?

Its obvious you want a ban on it. Also marketing IS free speech.

Lets try another way.

Which forms of speech that YOU find harmful to society should be allowed?

[Illusions]

Gosh, how can you be sure you're getting proper medical care?

Ask your doctor if MedicalAdvert is right for you?

[GGT]

If we have doctors mis-prescribing medicines just because their patients see an ad and ask a question, I think the problem is with doctors.

Over-prescribing, or 'too-quick-to-script' might be the problem. Meds for ADD/ADHD, erectile dysfunction, pain, insomnia, anxiety....have found their way into black/shadow markets, and used for recreational purposes. It's pretty easy to 'score' prescription meds, just ask any HS or college-aged kid.

I could find some Ambien, Ritalin, Vicodin, Oxycodone, Morphine, Xanax, Cialis/Viagra, or Lyrica -- tomorrow -- with a few phone calls.
Either there's so much being prescribed that people will "share" (or kids can steal and trade) from the family medicine chest, or physicians and pharmacists have dropped the ball somewhere. Take a look at Lyrica:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrica

Pregabalin is marketed by Pfizer under the trade name Lyrica. Pfizer described in an SEC filing that the drug could be used to treat epilepsy, post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia. Sales reached a record $3.063 billion in 2010.^[2]
It is effective at treating some causes of chronic pain such as fibromyalgia but not others. It is considered to have a low potential for abuse, and a limited dependence liability if misused, but is classified as a Schedule V drug in the U.S.^[3]
Lyrica is one of four drugs which a subsidiary of Pfizer in 2009 pleaded guilty to misbranding "with the intent to defraud or mislead". Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion (£1.4 billion) in settlement, and entered a corporate integrity agreement. Pfizer illegally promoted the drugs and caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs for uses that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).^[4]

Or are you part of the "videogames cause violence and should be banned" crowd?

No.

Its obvious you want a ban on it. Also marketing IS free speech. Lets try another way. Which forms of speech that YOU find harmful to society should be allowed?

I don't want to BAN all marketing/advertising of prescription medicines. Rules and Regulations don't always mean outright BANS. And when they're created by elected legislators and enacted into law, that doesn't automatically mean Teh gummit is Big, Bad, or Evil.

Also, since you continually project your black-and-white world view onto everyone else, and inject that into every thread, yet consider that a valid debate tactic....don't act surprised when you're called a moron or troll.

Ask your doctor if MedicalAdvert is right for you?

I miss the old sarcasm tags.

[earthJoker]

If we have doctors mis-prescribing medicines just because their patients see an ad and ask a question, I think the problem is with doctors. Or are you part of the "videogames cause violence and should be banned" crowd?

You know I live in a small country with a dominant public TV, and over here doctors actually get flooded with patients after the national TV has broadcast a show about new treatment methods (yes such shows are allowed only direct product advertisement is disallowed). Most of them have absolutely nothing. So it is pretty clear that TV shows affect people. The problem is a overdose of that leads to hypochondriasis. Doctors really have better things to do than to put down patients that just saw an add.

I surely agree that our healthcare doesn't live up to our own standards of free market. It seems that the country just has agreed that our health is a topic that is more important than economical principles and ideologies. This agreement has lead to the compromise that healthcare is run privately but regulated by the government.

[Dreadnaught]

You know I live in a small country with a dominant public TV, and over here doctors actually get flooded with patients after the national TV has broadcast a show about new treatment methods (yes such shows are allowed only direct product advertisement is disallowed). Most of them have absolutely nothing. So it is pretty clear that TV shows affect people. The problem is a overdose of that leads to hypochondriasis. Doctors really have better things to do than to put down patients that just saw an add.

I surely agree that our healthcare doesn't live up to our own standards of free market. It seems that the country just has agreed that our health is a topic that is more important than economical principles and ideologies. This agreement has lead to the compromise that healthcare is run privately but regulated by the government.

All media effects people. Should we also ban Websites about drugs? Should we hold healthcare information to be the exclusive preserve of people with a state-sanctioned degree, who will deliver information to us depending on their mood and whim?

[Ominous Gamer]

Should we hold healthcare information to be the exclusive preserve of people with a state-sanctioned degree, who will deliver information to us depending on their mood and whim?

The professional still has to prescribe the item. End result is different...how?

[earthJoker]

Should we hold healthcare information to be the exclusive preserve of people with a state-sanctioned degree, who will deliver information to us depending on their mood and whim?

Information is still available, just commercials aren't. Sex isn't banned if you ban prostitution!

[Khendraja'aro]

And he seems to confuse "information" with "advertisement".

[Dreadnaught]

Information is still available, just commercials aren't. Sex isn't banned if you ban prostitution!

And he seems to confuse "information" with "advertisement".

Do you really think advertisements don't contain information? Especially highly-regulated medical advertisements? If you ban advertising and marketing, you're restricting information.

If your doctor can't make a professional judgement in response to a question their patient asks (based on a Website, newspaper ad, etc), then they probably aren't a very good doctor.

[Aimless]

True, advertisements do contain information, commonly of the variety known as "DISinformation"