DTC Ads Were The ‘Worst Decision:’ Roche Exec
14 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 2nd, 2008 // 9:36 am
Those direct-to-consumer ads you see in the US have been a big mistake for the global drug industry, undermining the reputation of the sector in the eyes of patients, William Burns, who heads Roche’s pharmaceuticals group, tells a conference in London, according to Reuters.
“Direct-to-consumer promotion was the single worst decision for the industry,” says Burns. “When industry says we’re spending all the money on R&D but actually it’s spending it on TV advertising to preserve margins, it doesn’t get much credibility.”
DTC ads, which are only permitted in the US and New Zealand, have come under harsh criticism by some doctors and consumer groups, especially after the 2004 withdrawal of Merck’s heavily promoted Vioxx painkiller. A total of $4.2 billion was spent on DTC drug ads in the US in 2005, up 330 percent from 1996, according to a study last year in The New England Journal of Medicine.
A worsening economic climate and a growing threat from generic versions of many of today’s blockbuster medicines means the economics of spending big bucks on advertising drugs with only marginal benefits over rivals could be changing anyway, according to Burns. “The marginally-different-and-market-it-like-hell model is over,” he says.
While the US has gone overboard in allowing drugmakers to promote direct to patients, Europe was too restrictive, he adds. Drugmakers have campaigned against rules that prevent them from marketing directly to consumers in Europe, despite often unreliable info available on the Internet, Reuters notes.
The European Commission is drawing up legislation that would allow a degree of information to be disseminated about medicines by their makers, though advertising pharmaceuticals would remained banned. The package of legislation was initially expected to be unveiled by the European Union’s executive arm last week but has been delayed, Reuters writes.
“You’ve got the two extremes on the planet, where we are given access to the public in America, which is too much, and in Europe we’re not given access to information,” Burns says.
Dan A.
Published on http://www.brainblogger.com
Your Television as you doctor?
Often, usually on television, one viewing will often at times see an advertisement for some type of medication- usually one involved in a large market disease state and the commercial is sponsored usually by a big pharmaceutical company for a particular network. This is called direct to consumer advertising, and doctors would prefer they did not exist.
Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising, the popularity of the creation of such commercials has greatly increased. The pharmaceutical industry spends around 5 billion annually on this media source now. Normally, the creation of such a commercial becomes visible to the consumer within a year of the drug’s approval, which raises safety concerns. And involves money spent that could be applied to greater uses, according t many, but we are dealing with a corporation here.
The purpose of DTC ads is not education, in my opinion, as others have claimed. Any advertising of any type shares the same objective, which is to increase sales and grow their market and, in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, believing upon research that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition. Furthermore, the FDA has admitted that they are ignorant as far as the content of such DTC ads, in relation to their accuracy and clarity, as well as their effect on the health care system.
DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering.
Disease mongering is the creation of what some believe to be medical flaws, and illustrated by the creators through exaggeration and embellishments through media sources as an avenue for suc propaganda, as is often seen with DTC advertising. Yet the flaws may not be medical, but corporate creations of these questionable human ailments that do not require treatment, possibly, and may be an attempt to develop a particular medical condition to acquire profit. One of my favorite DTCs is the new indication for the use of an anti-depressant for a social disorder. This used to be called introversion, a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. And it is a personality trait, not a medical disease. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is baldness treatments advertised, as another example. Lifestyle meds are not treatment meds for illnesses, and should not be portrayed as such.
Also, DTC ads discuss only one treatment option normally, so it seems, when likely several treatment options exist for authentic medical disorders. This should be left to the discretion of the doctor, as they assess your health, not your television or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not conduct DTC advertising, with the exception of our country and New Zealand.
Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professional remains largely unregulated, yet apparently effective for the DTC creators. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Many, after viewing a DTC ad, seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes things cumbersome for the doctor chosen for such a visit. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative way, because most DTC ads require a prescription. Also, in some situations, the sponsor will speak and acquire a dormant/inactive actor or known athelete to fuel their intent.
Medical information and claims of suggested health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world. Perhaps this will save some over-prescribing, which will benefit everyone in the long term. And the Health Care System can regain control of their purpose, which is far from financial prosperity.
“Ignorance is not innocence but sin.” — Robert Browning
Dan Abshear
Author’s note: What has been written was based on information and belief
PaulGGG
Say what? Have you seen all those Boniva ads from Roche with Sally Field?
If they are so convinced they are a bad thing, why are they running them?
RandDChemist
Finally! Someone admits to what many within and around the industry have known.
Consumers need to be educated, but through the media for something as important as one’s health is not the way.
Ed Silverman
Hi Paul,
You’re right. It’s hard to miss Sally Field. I suppose the notion is something like when in America, do like the Americans. Presumably, the ads help generate the desired return, which would mean it’s simply a business decision at the end of the day, yes?
Regards
ed
Chris MacDonald
Interesting.
I have deep worries about DTC, but I wonder if Burns’s worries about credibility really make much sense. Only a tiny portion of the population knows about the advertising budgets of drug companies, and it’s not clear that vague doubts about credibility matter as much as the visibility that ads bring.
On the other hand, there was a recent study in Canada claiming to show that DTC isn’t very effective anyway. I’m somewhat skeptical about that claim, for reasons I pointed out here:
“Are Pharma Companies Idiots? Unlikely…”
http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2008/09/are-pharma-companies-idiots-unlikely.html
Nathan
The problem is that even if Roche decides that DTC ads are a bad thing, they won’t stop unless there is some sort of “mutual standdown” among *all* of big pharma. Otherwise, if a couple of companies slow down thier DTC ads, thier market share will likely drop while market share by those that continue DTC will increase.
(I don’t think ANYONE argues that DTC doesn’t work - the arguement is that it is bad for society and an overall waste of money)
Jaynesday
Per Roche -
“Those direct-to-consumer ads you see in the US have been a big mistake for the global drug industry, undermining the reputation of the sector in the eyes of patients,”
It sounds to me like Roche is catching on to the great danger looming in the pharma future - that being the public’s perception of pharma in general.
I’ve said it before but when the term “pharmaceuticals” = “dangerous or untrustworth” the harm will be done and getting out of the hole that they have dug will require more than the accumulated profit they have ever made.
Losing the trust of the consumer is easy because you can still make a profit while doing it. Gaining the trust of the consumer back cost massive amounts of money that you don’t have. There will be others ready to jump in when the time is right.
The American consumer’s perceptions are slow to change but a powerful force that can level any industry.
I agree with Nathan that all the players have to change because it only takes a few bad apples…. We currently can identify who the bad apples are. That’s enough to know that their destructive influence is now spreading through the barrel.
Let's go back to the 70's man!
So who’s the pharma exec that said their co spent more on R&D than marketing?! How could they? Pull their 10-Q! (www.sec.gov for those that haven’t) This guys an idiot!!!
Stubborn fact is that only ~1/3 of Americans with a medical condition are treated. Over the last 15 years the utilization ratio of Rx has increased from a rate below other industrialized countries to comparable. DTC is the reason they are benefiting from the work that R&D accomplishes. Yes, SG&A could be ignored and profits to produce new medicines could be less… that experiment has just begun.
In light of the limits on small molecule discoveries, the antiquated block-buster model and a Congressionally squeezed FDA, major pharma will turn into the Big 3 and spec pharma’s & biotechs will continue to grow.
If those ‘winners’ can pitch their med’s to their select patient groups, maybe those profits could produce biologic or targeted discoveries for the next generation.
bob ehrlich
Mr. Burns is entitled to his opinion on DTC but it is disingenuous to think criticism of the drug industry was caused by DTC. In fact criticism of high retail prices and drug safety long pre-dated DTC. In fact DTC is a minor portion of drug promotion costs. Detailing, sampling, medical meetings, and journal ads make up 90% of marketing budgets. Were those decisions to spend on those tactics equally bad?
I think Mr. Burns is deciding to pick on the wrong thing and scapegoat it. If the drug industry had provided price support programs like PPA ten years ago we may not have the current criticisms. DTC is not without its faults but its messages are transparent to consumers and regulators. As CEO, Mr. Burns has the power to end DTC at his company if he chooses. I assume, however, he thinks it is fine for his product Boniva.
Justice in MI
I suspect it’s an issue of short and long-term gains. While DTC has made the “blockbuster” model possible, and it does sell pills, it has also contributed to degrading the overall image of the industry as “something special.”
Are there other factors? Of course. But if this is “an industry people love to hate” (title of a pro-industry op ed), DTC provides one very visible target, fair or not.
Jaynesday
Justice, I agree. What the public perceives whether true or false, right or wrong is most important.
Pharma companies have pretty much been out of the public eye as far as name brands go but when the industry as a whole gets a black eye no matter what the cause, it takes everything down. I use the American automotive industry as an example, excluding the current situation as this isn’t an auto industry caused problem.
Bruce Berger
boniva, and before OTC alli there was xenical
Of course with so many oncology drugs, Roche does a minimum - but not out of ethics, but marketing forces for it’s line
Rita
Suddenly people who watch 30 second commercials are telling their doctors what pills they should be taking. Ridiculous! The average joe doesn’t know that a drug like Caduet has two ingredients that can be purchased MUCH cheaper separately than together. One is Amlodipine and the other is Atorvastatin. With my RxDrugCard I can get 30 tablets of Amlodipine for $9 and 30 tablets of Simvastatin for $9. I’ll bet they are charging more than $18 for this new drug! I think that RxDrugCard.com is the best drug card available for prescription discounts. The monthly family membership fee is only $4.95! You can’t beat that!
atlex
Rita,
You are incorrect. While the amlodipine portion of Caduet is available generically, the atorvastatin is not available generically; atorvastatin is int he same class as, but is not the same as simvastatin. Moreover, for most insured people on Caduet, the cost of Caduet is no more than the two ingredients separately.
Atlex