Isn’t the issue really that most of the “obvious” drugs have been found and the R&D is a lot harder, and the medications that come from the research much more focused on a smaller patient set? I don’t think it is the regulatory environment that is creating that issue.

In financial compliance, we are taught that a firm that is marketing-driven, as opposed to compliance-driven, is an accident waiting to happen. It works like this: somebody sees an odd-looking transaction (ie, outside the usual pattern for a particular client). That person, usually quite low down in the food chain, files a Suspicious Transaction Report. This is taken up by the Compliance Department, which would investigate further. The first person that it’s likely to speak to is the client’s contact within the firm. The client is a valuable client, within the portfolio of the S&M guy. He doesn’t want the thing investigated, just on the offchance that it’s dodgy. So, not only does he make light of it with Compliance, but he goes to his own boss, in order to suggest that Compliance is fucking around with his clients. Sooner or later, in a S&M-based culture, pressure will be brought to bear on Compliance to back down. If it doesn’t, then it’s only a matter of time before a campaign begins to discredit.

Compliance, as a unit, realizes that it is going to receive no back-up, at the highest level, whereupon it stops doing its job, because it has no incentive to do so. S&M has “won,” because the pattern is now set: any disputes, and Compliance will back down. Compliance will now become completely demotivated, because it understands that, not only is it not being permitted to do its job, but that it is simultaneously required to make it look as if it is doing its job and if the shit hits the fan, it will carry the can, too.

Such is the nature of a marketing-led business. The alternative expression is “culture of blind eye.”

Matt

I’m sorry you feel my post above was made in an effort to get people to visit my website. Furthermore, my website is NOT “the front end for a mail order pharmacy in the West Indes”, as you put it.

I am among Google, Yahoo! and MSN’s largest pharmaceutical advertisers. I just thought I’d set the story straight - my post was not intended as a form of advertisement. Believe it or not, I’m quite familiar with the term and its intended use.

Now if we can get back to the real topic at large:

Big Pharmacy R&D Spending

Atlex is correct on the self imposed delay of DTC for 6 mos. One can say that Industry struck a deal with Congress. I also believe that Media had a larger role in getting the 2 year deal killed. They would have lost BIG $$$$$$

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to William Hill. All he is trying to do is get you to go to his company’s website which is the front end for a mail order pharmacy in the West Indes.

As for now, all of the large pharma companies are abiding by a self imposed delay of DTC for 6 months. Often they delay longer since it doesn’t do any good to start DTC before ensuring that physicians are familiar with the new product.

Ed, do you want to take down postings that are clearly designed as advertisement?

Atlex

As you probably know, much was made about banning DTC for two years after approval in FDAAA - a regulation that was deleted from the final bill.

Is the lag time the result of FDA’s having to approve the ads after having approved the drug?

Supporters of this form of advertising, which is banned in nearly almost all countries (excluding the United States and New Zealand) say it provides a real service to consumers, informing them of new drugs and alerting them to health problems they may be unaware of.

Critics feel this form of advertising promotes only the most expensive new blockbuster drugs, when older and cheaper versions of drugs might be just as effective, thus driving up overall health care costs, with much emphasis placed on the high costs of prescription drugs.

Aggressive promotion can pay off big time. Merck, maker of Vioxx, the most promoted drug, spent $161 million advertising it in 2000, and sales of Vioxx quadrupled to $1.5 billion.

In fact, Merck spent more advertising Vioxx, according to NIHCM (National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation), than the $125 million spent promoting Pepsi or the $146 million spent on Budweiser beer ads. It even came close to the $169 million spent promoting GM’s Saturn, the nation’s most advertised car.

The drug industry says its ads not only educate consumers but also prompt people who might otherwise go undiagnosed to see their doctors. Many doctors agree.

Total spending on pharmaceutical promotion grew from $11.4 billion in 1996 to $29.9 billion in 2005. Although during that time spending on direct-to-consumer advertising increased by 330%, it made up only 14% of total promotional expenditures in 2005. Direct-to-consumer campaigns generally begin within a year after the approval of a product by the FDA.