Is the party over for drug ads? Posted by Liz at 01/29/07 02:24 PM

It’s hard to turn on the TV or read the newspaper without being bombarded with advertisements promoting the latest and greatest blockbuster drug out on the market to treat your allergies or your receding hair line.

But soon we may see a crack down on these ads. Congress is expected to re-introduce legislation this year that would give the FDA the authority to put a moratorium on ads for new drugs.

Drug advertising aimed at consumers, a fast-growing category that reached $4.5 billion last year, will face hard scrutiny in the new Congress, according to industry critics in both the House and Senate.

The consumer ads will be on the griddle early in this session at hearings on the user fees that manufacturers pay to speed the reviewing of new drugs by the Food and Drug Administration. The user fee law will die in the fall unless Congress acts to renew it.

The pharmaceutical industry, which often gets what it asks for from Congress and the executive branch, seeks to renew the law and add a new set of user fees that would be pay salaries for additional F.D.A. employees to evaluate all consumer drug ads, before they are shown on television.

Drug companies say "trust us" and believe that any efforts to limit drug ads should be left up to the industry. Billy Tauzin is the president of the powerful trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Mr. Tauzin’s organization issued voluntary guidelines for consumer ads, which took effect last year. Under the guidelines, the companies have promised to hold off on consumer advertising of a new medicine for an unspecified “appropriate” period.

The problem with drug ads is that they often play down side effects and try to convince the public that their new product is the greatest thing since sliced bread (or the last me-too drug they put out on the market). However, there are often cheaper and just as effective drugs on the market already.

Senator Kennedy is the sponsor of a bill in Congress that would give the FDA the authority to limit drug ads.

“Patients deserve the best and most accurate information about the medicines they take,” Senator Kennedy said in a statement. “An essential part of any drug safety proposal must be to give the F.D.A. the authority and resources it needs to oversee direct-to-consumer advertising, and to allow the F.D.A. to impose conditions or limits on that advertising, where needed to protect the public health."

In case you missed how much drug companies spent on drug advertising last year, it was over $4 billion. (Wow, those Lunesta butterflies are really expensive) A recent study shows that between 1997-2005, direct-to-consumer spending grew at twice the rate of research and development spending by the drug industry.

comments (14)

1 Posted by Bill Klein at 02/01/07 11:26 AM

In general, I object to these drug ads - especially in light of how much money these drug companies spend... just another add-on to the already ridiculous drug prices. However, in some toned down fashion, I do believe they (drug ads) can serve a purpose. The existing methods used by family practice physicians - e.g., scheduling appointments for 8 to 12 patients (or more) per hour - precludes a very thorough evaluation of each patient. The more informed the patient is, via drug ads or other info sources, the better chance he or she has to effectively communicate with the physician and receive appropriate treatment.

2 Posted by lavada desalles at 02/01/07 12:51 PM

4 billion dollars would fund an awful lot of R & D. R and D has been the excuse drug companies use to justify the high price of their products. I'm in favor of stopping all drug advertising!

3 Posted by Wendy Teague at 02/01/07 01:27 PM

Is there no common sense anymore?
Drug companies spending over 4 billion dollars a year on advertising explains why drugs cost so much in this country. I do not believe the FDA works to "protect" us anymore. They make their money off the drug companies and have approved drugs such as Vioxx as the maker hid test results for years proving the drug had problems that can result in death. Now the lastest so-called cancer vaccine (which its not, its for HPV) is spouting all over the airwaves wanting us to subject our daughters to an unproven vaccine neglecting to tell us about the side effects such as birth defects. and now Merck has spents millions to push thru a law requiring girls to take the vaccine or they cant go to school! Its time Congress stopped taking any bribes from the the drug industry! Take all the RX marketing off the air and reduce drug costs 4 billion a year. While they are at it, perhaps they can make the FDA start doing its job again to work for us and not the drup companies. Its time to take care of Americans and cut corporations back down to size!
Its time for Congress to do their job too!

4 Posted by michael boerer at 02/01/07 02:56 PM

why not advertise in europe or asia, then they can subsidse americans like we have been doing all along.

5 Posted by Jim Cooper at 02/01/07 04:41 PM

Our "free market economy" is more efficient in getting the right product to the right people when it is unencumbered by redundant laws. Any advertiser, with ads reaching across state lines is already subject to truth in advertising federal laws. Consumers would benefit from a law that requires drug ads to clearly disclose risks with emphasis equal to the statement of benefits. We are, as consumers, wary of advertisers that state serious negative reactions to their medications with soft voices and smiling faces.

6 Posted by Susan at 02/01/07 04:50 PM

Drug advertising aimed at consumers, to the tune of 4+ BILLION Dollars a year, should disappear and take the Lunesta butterfly with it!

All that money would be better spent if used to lower drug prices, so patients don't need to decide between food and meds, and I look forward to the day when a 60 second commercial doesn't include 40 seconds of "__________ may cause..."

7 Posted by D shlian at 02/01/07 06:10 PM

The height of idiocy was the latest ad I watched on TV telling people to consider getting an ICD (implantable cardiac defibrillator)- the speaker did warn that "ICD's are not for everyone". So many of the drugs and devices advertised on TV are for very specific and serious diseases and conditions such as Rheumatoid Arthritis that require diagnosis and ongoing management by a physician. If anything, the medical societies hsould be advising patients to see their physicians for regular check-ups including preventive care. But then that's not in the "interest" of the pharma companies...

8 Posted by Mary R at 02/01/07 06:29 PM

If we ae the right foods we would put the drug companies out of business and we wouldn't have to be concerned with the cost of prescriptions

9 Posted by Robert T at 02/01/07 08:59 PM

4 Billion dollars! To inform us? Most of the information is either incorrect or misleading. When I need to know about a new drug my doctor prescribes, I go to the internet, and the many medical websites out there. I read all the information, both good and bad, before I make any decisions. This costs me very little if anything. And I learn a lot more that way than I'd ever learn from the drug companies ads. Drugs are far too expensive, and this is one of the primary reasons, aside from greed. The drugs are controlled substances, so why shouldn't the advertising be controlled, too. The FDA is supposed to be there to protect the public. Let them do their job.

10 Posted by John KCk at 02/02/07 12:17 AM

We have relatives in The Netherlands (he is a pharmacist) and when they were visiting they were appalled at the prescription drug ads. They simply aren't allowed in the Netherlands. I don't think they should be allowed here.

11 Posted by Robert Bixby at 02/02/07 11:32 AM

Doctors hate these ads. The day after they appear, the flood of patients begins, demanding the medication for diseases they think they have. Patients are ill-served by the ads. And worse, these ads are often for treatments for problems that aren't really problems--"diseases" like shyness or baldness. And diseases for which the advertised drug is probably not a good answer.

12 Posted by katherine at 02/02/07 03:00 PM

OK .. my experience comes from working in the medical device field (in the past) which is very similiar and we were a part of a ginormous pharamacuital conglomerate. I feel it will do no good to limit advertising, companies will shift the money elsewhere .. probably giving away more free samples to doctors offices or posters in clinics. That money will not be given back into the pocket of the consumer. We need legislation that deals with the whole issue and isn't another band-aid fix. In my experience .. prices was set on what people would pay .. not what something cost ... it was based on what the alternative treatments cost as well. So we made something that cost only dollars to make .. but sold it for upwards of $100 because that is what the market would pay... I mean if you need it you need it. I know another company that had a new blood thinner (years ago) and it was priced at over $2000 cuz the alternative was a $5000 medical procedure... it didn't cost that much to make and it didn't cost that much to r&d it....

Also .. yes the FDA has some fault but they are given very limited control .... we have to decide as a society to give them complete control in regulation or not... the example is .. we need to make sure things are safe, effective, manufactured properly, etc.. this cost a very large and timely investment .. yet we as a community holler that it takes so long to get something to market so we need to free up the regulations ... We can't have our cake and eat it to... we need to find away to have products that are safe, priced appropriatly and create a system that is not full or red tape and needless steps that delay release.

Lets get some real legislation and not just the cut and paste bandaid of fixing the hot topic of today.

13 Posted by Karen at 02/08/07 09:36 PM

Worse than the massive amount of money spent on the drug ads is the grossly misleading idea that they perpetuate: that you will be happy and healthy as long as you take drugs. In addition to fostering a drug-dependent lifestyle - remember DARE anyone? - it is simply untrue. All drugs have side effects and long term drug use is in almost all cases more harmful than helpful. The hard choices, living a healthier lifestyle, is always the best first choice, but many so called alternative medicines provide a much better choice than drugs, if lifestyle is not enough or if it's too late. This is what the drug companies really don't want people to figure out. Drug use is fast food medicine.

14 Posted by Cindy at 02/10/07 12:05 AM

Do away with the advertising as we did with the tobacco industries advertising. People get false hopes, are misled and don't realize how much they are costing all of us. People with still have to use the drugs, since Doctors can't get around pushing them. Profits are too high. While there is a place for the medications, not always are they in the consumers best interest.