Spot-on!

Namaste

I’d prefer that they spend their money educating my doctor and quit pretending to look after my wellbeing while grabbing for my billfold.

do you recognize that DTC ads provide education to consumers? While it may be that some of this information is biased, and may cause some consumers to believe they need remedies for conditions they don’t actually have, it can at least provides a starting point for them to learn more, can it not?

And to say that “The pharmaceutical industry has no business doing anything directly to the consumer” is just absurd. What about patient inserts?

Not all patients have a great relationship, or any relationship, for that matter, with a physician. Not all doctors take the time to understand their patients’ conditions, much less teach those patients about treatment options. Shouldn’t those patients have access to information remedies that may be beneficial?

If you think an “expense” deduction (re lawyer advertising) is equivalent to the DIRECT purchase, by agencies of the federal government (of some $100 billion of drug-product, annually). . .

We really are out of any meaningful space for reasoned discourse.

Namaste

Pharma operates under several important restrictions as well and has both government-imposed and self-imposed limits on what can or cannot be done with DTC.

As for lawyers, last I checked, promotion expenses are an offset to income and thus lowers taxes paid to government. So advertising by lawyers is essentially subsidized in a similar fashion to promotion by pharma, hospitals, insurers and physicians.

Atlex

The only problem is that the FDA is failing through being either overwhelmed, circumvented, tricked, or overtaken by the industry. So we have put ourselves in a very dangerous position as yearly the industry strikes out to free itself from the limits of their interposers. DTC is one such undertaking.

The pharmaceutical industry has no business doing anything directly to the consumer.

As to doctors’ “DTC”, I similarly think that there ought to be less of it — as it is, there are several important restrictions in most states on “DTC” by doctors and lawyers — and yes, Atlex — hospitals.

I think all of these are appropriate areas for significant, and perhaps increased, regulation.

Last time I looked though, none of the lawyers spending on advertising were being paid by the federal government to any significant degree.

The opposite seems true of hospitals and pharma and yes doctors.

But this discussion was all about pharma DTC, wasn’t it?

Namaste

How convenient that you didn’t address advertising by doctors and hospitals (or lawyers, etc.). It’s pretty hard to “kick the tires” around any of those areas. All I ask for is consistency…come out as hard against those as against DTC and I’ll congratulate you on your principled stand. Until then, I view it as simply a screed against pharma.

Atlex

I fear we’re about to reach a point where I’ll simply “agree to disagree” with you, and stop typing. We are just too far apart.

See, I think buyers of pencils, bridges, roads and even F-16 fighter jets are more readily able to discern the value of those things — than the CONSUMER-buyers — of prescription pharmaceuticals.

At the risk of beating this already long-dead horse, drugs are almost entirely “opaque” goods. So, your analogy to these other largely “transparent” goods is fatally flawed.

Caveat emptor only works when one can “kick the tires“. How can I do that, re Vioxx, for example? [Without increasing my risk of heart-attack, that is!]

This is why we, as a nation, have interposed FDA between the pharma-sellers, and these buyers — to improve the likelihood that what is purchased is of some actual health outcomes benefit. If it is of benefit, advertising to doctors may be appropriate — but advertising to consumers may not be. All DTC does is add to the cost-burden for private pay individuals, insurers and taxpayers. As you yourself pointed out above, $3.3 billion of annual incremental costs.

Do you really believe a doctor wouldn’t prescribe a truly-helpful drug, if s/he weren’t “badgered” about it, by his/her patient — that saw a Super Bowl TV commercial for say, Cialis?

C’mon — we’re all more sophisticated than that. To suggest otherwise is to insult US doctors — your ultimate customer base.

The truth is, all DTC is simply aimed at maximizing profit, often at the expense of good medicine. Vytorin is Exhibit A for this proposition.

In any event, I wish you well.

Namaste