You ask “…why are US physicians and hospital earnings never brought up?” Do you remember that old Street Scam “The Three Shells”? (no, not the one in that Sci-Fi Stallone Movie). How about a master magician’s sleight of hand and the ole false-direction game?

One of my pet theories is that as long as other health industry lobbies (and please, I do hope no one will take issue with the fact that ALL of the interested stakeholders have lobbyists) and so-called guardians of health-ethics keep the American public and politicos focused on PhARMA and BIO and the media keeps giving it sensationalistic ink the attention stays off of them.

Besides, who is going to bell that cat? Would PhARMA? Though they have all that data they will not bring it into play to counter the verbiage that those in other parts of the health businesses use against them. Maybe I should start my own Syndicated Star Ledger Blog - “HealthCareAlot” and feature stories about the rest of health care industry groups a la Pharmalot.

A true breakthru drug would be the savior to the industry but I think that the 2nd coming is more likely despite the R&D billions being spent.

99% of the new drugs appear to me as just more ‘me toos’ despite all the Pharma hype.

That off my mind, why are US physicians and hospital earnings never brought up?
Is that not the real reason US medical costs are out of site?

The issue is all about marketing, but it is not about medicine, insurance or pharmaceuticals…it is about political marketing.

In an election year when every single night, a dozen times, we hear about the cost of health care, insurance, drug costs and that all candidates have a solution to give you everything you need and someone else is going to pay for it and that is great. It means more money for cigarettes, beer, fast food and what ever I want to spend it on…not what I need to spend it on.

Fact 1970 17% of the population had no medical insurance.

Fact 2006 17% of the population has no medical insurance.

Politics is the reason for the problem and they have no responsibility or accountability for what they say and do.

The federal government has been successful at crushing every world leading business segment the United States has ever had, we are no longer the leader in anything except political/legal interference.

But I bet Ted Kennedy is happy he can get all the medications he needs for his brain tumor and I bet he doesn’t insist on generics. I also bet he wishes he had supported the pharmaceutical companies more and all that money spent on over regulation could have been spent on research for brain tumors!

I would just add this. It is rational that people react with more outrage and attentiveness when things “go wrong” in pharma. As I’ve said before, when a sociologist messes up, no one cares because, in general, no one is relying on things going right.

So, inevitably, there is a different standard and a different sensitivity.

Hypersensitivy? Maybe. But med technology in general can take out a lot of people very quickly - drugs and devices. So, as above, I believe there have been _enough_ bad actors that the balance has tipped, certainly since ‘97. And while DTC may get some folks to consult with their docs in useful ways, it also is an ad that says, “We’re not really about what you thought and what we said all those years we’re about. We’re about that stat that Bob cited - four bucks for one buck.”

I guess basically I feel that drugs should not be pushed to the consumer directly, that they should be pulled from the manufacturer through the doctor. If they can be successfully pushed to the consumer the temptation for the manufacturer would be (is?) to “invent” needs for the consumer.
Inventing a need for a drug is taking advantage of the consumer. Playing on weaknesses I guess.
Its one thing to invent the need for a new gadget like the latest TV, phone or computer, but to invent the need for a drug is too…… I don’t know, scary, dangerous, troublesome?
(Of course not all new drugs fit this description)
Therefore DTC’s should be much more controlled than they currently are.

Now I think I am sure where I stand on DTC.

THAT is why pharma does DTC.

The traditional arguments for DTC drug advertising:

1. DTC advertising can encourage patient’s to see their doctor for a condition they might not have otherwise sought treatment, and presumably suffered through.
2. DTC advertising can raise patients general disease awareness, and knowledge, which can help lead to effective treatment (both drug therapy and otherwise).
3. DTC advertising is a right companies have, to legally present to the ultimate user of a product, factual information about that product.

The traditional arguments against DTC drug advertising:
1. DTC advertising presents the risks and benefits of drugs to consumers who (usually) cannot get that drug without a prescription from a doctor anyway (at least for prescription drugs).
2. DTC advertising creates a false impression in consumers mind that they may have diseases they don’t have causing them to seek drugs they don’t need.
3. DTC advertising wedges itself into the relationship between the doctor and the patient, where the patient goes in requesting a product instead of receiving the product the doctor thinks is best after seeing the patient.

I don’t think it’s to bypass the doctor. You’re post sounds like you’re pretty biased against DTC right now, but if you accept that at least some of the time my first point happens (someone goes to the doc to get a treatment for a disease they suffer from and had given up hope of fixing), then even the doc can’t get them on that treatment until the person actually gets off the couch and goes to the doctor. It reaches patients who don’t go to the doctor regularly (and that’s a lot of patients).

Atlex, got any others?