EU Plan Gives Pharma Direct Access To Patients
4 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // October 3rd, 2008 // 8:33 am
The proposal was endorsed by the European Union’s Pharmaceutical Forum as part of an effort to provide more reliable medical advice at a time when the Internet allows widespread dissemination of questionable info, even as companies that develop drugs are prevented from circulating data.
However, the recommendation weakens current EU restrictions on contacts between drugmakers and patients, including a strict ban on US-style direct-to-consumer advertising, which critics say encourages the inappropriate use of medicines, The Financial Times writes.
The forum statement echoes draft legislation set to be published this month by Gunther Verheugen, the EU’s enterprise and industry commissioner, which would ease marketing rules and allow drugmakers to communicate to the general public in written form and on the Internet, the FT notes.
A draft version calls for changes to the European law on drug advertising to allow pharma to circulate “objective and unbiased” info on their usage, side effects and prices. The new recommendations are less explicit, but stress the “added value for patients and citizens of providing information on medical conditions jointly with information on treatment options.”
Arthur Higgins, head of Bayer Healthcare of Germany and current president of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, welcomed the Forum’s declaration. “We strongly believe that better access to health information will lead to healthier behaviour and better compliance.”
However, Sophie Bloemen from Health Action International, a drug policy watchdog, which has called instead for medical info to be distributed via independent intermediaries, tells the FT: “We oppose all forms of direct ‘push’ communication by pharmaceutical companies. Information from industry will always have a tendency to be biased.”
With European parliamentary elections and a change in the Commission next year, there is no guarantee that Verheugen’s proposals will be approved, but his text combined with the forum’s advice are likely to help build momentum for reform of the current rules, the FT predicts.
Justice in MI
Probably not, but is the expression ‘direct push’ communication a subtle reference to the Levine case?
Anyone know the political persusions of those heading up this ‘inititive’?
Dianne
Stop! Arresto! Parada! Arrêt! Wrong direction. DTC ads encourage inappropriate use of medicines. The Health Action International should capitalize on the effects of DTC ads in the US, the policy of preemption and public heath and safety risks.
People often heed more when art imitates life. The 9/29/08 episode of Boston Legal exemplified the danger of DTC ads. See: Pharma Marketing Blog: Boston Legal’s Denny Crane Takes on Pharma Marketing. Where does he get his “facts?”
Justice in MI
Just a wistful historical note…
When FDAAA was first drafted, it included a provision that DTC would not happen for two years post-approval of new drugs. They would also have the equivalent of the “black triangle” in the UK, noting that we don’t know yet what the potential AEs may be. Among others, Senator and Dr. Bill Frist favored this provision.
Then PhRMA came up with its own ‘voluntary’ 6-month hold on DTC. And the provision was pulled from FDAAA.
Which way progress?
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Sophie Bloeman is correct. Medical information via intermediaries is the way to go.
It is very difficult for the typical lay person to understand the subtleties used in Pharma marketing and many do not realize that sometimes the best medicine is no medicine.
As for the comment that there is much misinformation out on the internet therefore Pharma needs to step in, is complexly unfounded and baseless.
I have seen quite a few patients harmed when they have interacted directly with Pharma.
Hope the EU continues to think about this - it is a mistake to say the least.