Apparently 70% of drugs advertised on TV are of “low therapeutic value,” (pain, blood pressure)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some new drugs sell themselves with impressive safety and efficacy data. For others, well, there are television commercials.
AMA members said the ads were "driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives."
The 10 most commonly advertised drugs have prices ranging from $535 to $11,000 per month or for a usual course of therapy.
Pharma is spending over $4 billion on TV ads - that is their most impactful form of advertising.
Part of the drugs high prices is... costly advertising.
I don't thing prescription medicine should be on TV commercials. I think only trained medical persons (doctors, nurses, etc.) should be deciding on the such medication together with their patients (without the patient asking for something they saw on TV).
Some new drugs sell themselves with impressive safety and efficacy data. For others, well, there are television commercials.
AMA members said the ads were "driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives."
The 10 most commonly advertised drugs have prices ranging from $535 to $11,000 per month or for a usual course of therapy.
Pharma is spending over $4 billion on TV ads - that is their most impactful form of advertising.
Part of the drugs high prices is... costly advertising.
Excellent point, elnina, and something should be done about it.
From my memory, these direct-to-consumer TV ads for (high cost) prescription drugs are a fairly recent thing....and should end. The "health" insurance $$bottomless pit$$ built to feed the fraud that encompasses so much of big pharma is at the core of the problem. The solution centers on demolishing it.
I think in many cases, the ads are intended to reach people who have already tried less costly alternatives and they don’t work. For example, many of the drugs you see advertised are for use after people have tried and failed methotrexate. Interestingly enough, the new drugs can end up being cheaper for the patient if they are able to work with a pharmacy that finds the appropriate coupons.
I still don’t think the ads are appropriate, but at the same time I am not sure what advertising for a beta blocker or methotrexate is going to do.
I believe the US and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow pharma ads. If I hear another crappy ad for Esenza or Sazooza, crapazza again using the phrase "Ask your GD doctor" again, I'm going to go nuts. These kinds of ads are relatively new in the US and should be kicked to the curb.
I think the money these pharma companies spend on advertising on TV is another way to control their narrative. Many of these networks will not cross these companies or else they will lose revenue, very large amounts.
I'm pretty sure the driving force behind TV ads for drugs is the tax write-off. The drugs being advertised are for the most part tertiary or higher tier treatments indicated only when more standard care has failed....and the only thing more insulting to a doc than having a pt updating him with their new found knowledge of pharmacology gained from a TV commercial is when they bring in clippings from The National Inquirer
On the more basic concept of efficacy-- the overwhelming number of drugs don't "save lives." Most, at best, just increase slightly the risk of succumbing to the given condition, or maybe reduce symptoms and /or prolong survival by a few months to years.....Even the most widely prescibed classes, such as anti-hypertensives and anti-diabetes meds only inprove outcomes by a few percentage points.....Our famous statins don't improve primary outcomes at all and improve secondary outcomes by a lousy 2%, yet they have been obligatory Standard of Care for three decades now.
In most cases the advertised drug is new on the market, and the long term efficiency is not even well know, so the pharma is "testing" it on gullible consumers.
Lots of people "feel better" even if they take placebo. It's the power of "placebo effect" ...
Excellent point, elnina, and something should be done about it.
From my memory, these direct-to-consumer TV ads for (high cost) prescription drugs are a fairly recent thing....and should end.
The drugs advertisement on TV is going on for 40 years now.
On May 19, 1983, Boots Pharmaceutical aired the first broadcast television commercial in the US for a prescription drug, the pain reliever Rufen.
Within 48 hours of the ad’s airing, the federal government told the company to take it down. And more than 40 years later, the fight over marketing prescription drugs directly to the public is still raging.
BTW:
Rufen it's just a generic Ibuprofen. And why it was advertised - fancy new name and new price.
Ibuprofen was already known on the US market since 1974.
The drugs advertisement on TV is going on for 40 years now.
On May 19, 1983, Boots Pharmaceutical aired the first broadcast television commercial in the US for a prescription drug, the pain reliever Rufen.
Within 48 hours of the ad’s airing, the federal government told the company to take it down. And more than 40 years later, the fight over marketing prescription drugs directly to the public is still raging.
BTW:
Rufen it's just a generic Ibuprofen. And why it was advertised - fancy new name and new price.
Ibuprofen was already known on the US market since 1974.
Well, they may have begun in '83, but they didn't get going under a full head of steam until well into the 2000s. When I say fairly recent thing, I'm talking about at the obscene levels we've suffered for just the last 10-15 years.
Yes, most people can do just fine without most drugs. And it was almost a religion for me to avoid doctors and drugs until I was 65, when I was told that no one would pull the tooth I needed pulled with my blood pressure what it was. Thus I was forced to accept a daily ARB tablet - something I vowed I would never do. Then, before I knew it, I had persistent (now permanent) AFIB and had to accept 2 new drugs just to expect to stay alive. One for rate control, which is easy to understand and hard to argue with. The other, an anticoagulant for reduction of stroke risk, which I learned was a major concern with AFIB. I'm still not totally sold on Eliquis for life, but strokes ruin lives or kill. And that threat so far has dragged me, kicking and screaming, to continuation of my two Eliquis tablets per day.
So it's a bit different for people with chronic illness. For me, a life-long maverick who had vowed to forever shun all big medicine in all forms, it feels a little like being imprisoned. I'm chained to the system now at 73, but most people don't need to be.
Big pharma's objective with those ads is, of course, to chain everyone for life.
Last edited by CrownVic95; 01-18-2023 at 12:40 PM..
I don't thing prescription medicine should be on TV commercials. I think only trained medical persons (doctors, nurses, etc.) should be deciding on the such medication together with their patients (without the patient asking for something they saw on TV).
I agree. Let’s also remove the Big Supplement ads while we’re at it. They are unproven to have any efficacy other than effectively removing money from the wallets of the gullible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
