Drug companies and advertising

[Guest Ian Wong]

Here's an interesting article just released by the Globe and Mail. It states that patients are more likely to request a given medication if they see it advertised in the media, and doctors are accordingly more likely to then write a prescription for that medication.

 

Not surprising given the billions of dollars that is pumped into advertising and publicity support for pharmaceuticals, both at the physician and patient levels.

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

 

www.globeandmail.com/serv...num_rows=1

 

 

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> Patients requesting advertised drugs<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

By ANDRé PICARD

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

 

Saturday, February 2, 2002 – Page A8

 

Patients who specifically request medicine are nine times more likely to leave a doctor's office with a prescription than those who do not, according to a new Canadian study.

 

The drugs patients are asking for are predominantly those they have seen advertised in the media, and doctors are prescribing them even though they may be largely ambivalent about their value, researchers report in this week's edition of the British Medical Journal.

 

"This is pretty compelling evidence that direct-to-consumer advertising is shifting prescribing practices," Barbara Mintzes of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia, said.

 

Her research found that patients request prescription drugs in 12 per cent of physician visits. And 42 per cent of requests are specifically for drugs that are advertised directly to consumers.

 

The study found that 40 per cent of doctors have doubts about the need for the drugs being requested, and that rises to 50 per cent for drugs advertised to consumers.

 

"It tells you that doctors are feeling pressure," Ms. Mintzes said.

 

The study was conducted in Sacramento, Calif., where pharmaceutical advertising is allowed, and in Vancouver, where it is tightly restricted. Despite the legislative differences, 90 per cent of Vancouver patients reported seeing some direct-to-consumer ads, probably on U.S. TV and in U.S. magazines.

 

Under Canada's Food and Drug Act, advertising is strictly limited to messages about "name, price and quantity." The maker of Viagra can, for example, either advertise the name, or urge viewers to seek help for erectile dysfunction, but cannot link the two.

 

Only two countries allow advertising of prescription drugs directed at patients, the United States and New Zealand. Pharmaceutical companies spend $2.5-billion on advertising in the United States each year, and 40 per cent of that is allocated to only 10 products.

 

In Canada, the issue is the subject of a heated debate.

 

A new poll suggests that Canadians support direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs but, at the same time, believe special regulations should be enacted to protect consumers.

 

The poll, conducted by Ipsos-Reid, found that 68 per cent of those surveyed support direct-to-consumer advertising. That figure rises to 85 per cent if the ads are prescreened by a regulatory authority designed to ensure balance and accuracy.

 

Yet, there is some confusion about existing laws, because 53 per cent of those surveyed believe that drug advertising is already legal in Canada. However, most viewers of U.S. television would be regularly exposed to detailed drug advertising.

 

The Ipsos-Reid poll was commissioned by the Alliance for Access to Medical Information, a coalition of media organizations that stand to profit handsomely from changes to current legislation.

 

In her paper, Ms. Mintzes notes that prescription drugs that are advertised in the United States tend to be the newest and most expensive treatments for long-term use. She also cites research that showed that 40 per cent of the increase in drug spending between 1998 and 1999 was attributable to the top 25 advertised drugs. Doctors wrote 34-per-cent more prescriptions for those drugs, compared with 5-per-cent more for all other drugs.

[Guest Unknown </username> <dateline>1118447940</dateline> <title>Unknown</title> <pagetext>(This]

(This post is missing and can not be restored)</pagetext>

</post>

<post>

<thread>Y</thread>

<threadtitle>Medicine and pregnancy</threadtitle>

<threadviews>0</threadviews>

<threadsticky>0</threadsticky>

<poll></poll>

<username>

 

Victoria

 

 

</username>

<dateline>1012534080</dateline>

<title>Medicine and pregnancy</title>

<pagetext>While manyfamily , friends and colleagues believe these two pathways are mutually exclusive given the trials and stessors of medical school, are they really?

 

I'd LOVE to have an opportunity to go to medical school....but who knows maybe it's not in the cards ...we'll see. BUT I hate to think I'm putting off having children until afterwards should I actuaaly ever get accepted.. I'm 31 now... I know it would be a very challenging path to take.

Any thoughts?

[Guest Unknown </username> <dateline>1118447940</dateline> <title>Unknown</title> <pagetext>(This]

(This post is missing and can not be restored)</pagetext>

</post>

<post>

<thread>N</thread>

<threadtitle>Medicine and pregnancy</threadtitle>

<threadviews>0</threadviews>

<threadsticky>0</threadsticky>

<poll></poll>

<username>

 

Unknown

 

 

</username>

<dateline>1118447940</dateline>

<title>Unknown</title>

<pagetext>(This post is missing and can not be restored)

[Guest Unknown </username> <dateline>1118447940</dateline> <title>Unknown</title> <pagetext>(This]

(This post is missing and can not be restored)</pagetext>

</post>

<post>

<thread>N</thread>

<threadtitle>Medicine and pregnancy</threadtitle>

<threadviews>0</threadviews>

<threadsticky>0</threadsticky>

<poll></poll>

<username>

 

Unknown

 

 

</username>

<dateline>1118447940</dateline>

<title>Unknown</title>

<pagetext>(This post is missing and can not be restored)