Prescription drug ads used to be found only in medical journals. That seemed logical, since doctors determine the most appropriate treatment for any given patient. Selecting the proper drug requires years of medical education and clinical judgment honed by practical experience.
These days, though, drug ads are everywhere. Turn on the TV and you will see commercials for antidepressants like Zoloft, cholesterol-lowering medicines such as Zocor and even powerful drugs such as Procrit for cancer patients.
Erectile dysfunction is a popular advertising topic. When football hero Mike Ditka throws the ball through a tire swing in his Levitra ad, you don’t have to be a genius to get the not-so-subtle hint. But just in case, he shouts, “You gotta love that!”
Why do drug makers spend nearly $3 billion dollars every year on ads for products that viewers cannot buy on their own? They work! Consumers become unpaid sales representatives for the pharmaceutical industry.
According to one analysis, drug companies make $4 for every $1 spent on such ads. An FDA survey found that more than two thirds of patients got a prescription for the drug they asked their doctor about.
Despite their compliance, many physicians hate drug ads and don’t like feeling pressured to prescribe. Even consumers are getting fed up with the glut of commercials on TV and print ads in magazines.
But don’t expect them to go away anytime soon. In fact, there may be an explosion in such direct-to-consumer advertising. That’s because the FDA has cut back on enforcement against misleading or false drug ads. At the same time, the agency is relaxing rules on how much information will be required.
Current regulations call for full disclosure in print ads. That means drug companies have to list all the significant side effects, precautions and warnings. In most cases, that “brief summary” (which is often longer than this column) is full of medical jargon and printed in very small type.
Drug companies have long realized that most folks find their eyes glazing over before they get very far into this so-called mouse print. The FDA found that three-fourths of the people surveyed don’t even bother with the fine print.
Under the new regulations, companies won’t have to offer so much information. FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan has said that “less is more for consumers.” Manufacturers will have to include only the most serious or common side effects.
That seems reasonable, until you realize that some uncommon reactions can be devastating. Marketers have an amazing ability to minimize the seriousness of drug problems.
Prescription drug commercials on TV are carefully designed to emphasize the benefits and downplay the dangers. While the announcer casually mentions that a drug can cause liver failure, stroke or internal bleeding, the picture on the screen shows actors having a fabulous time.
People deserve more understandable information about powerful medicines than they will get in a 30 second commercial or a glitzy print ad. Making it easier for drug companies to promote prescription drugs to consumers may improve profits but won’t necessarily make patients safer.
The People's Perspective on Medicine