Bob Ehrlich’s blog on blogs - July 8, 2008
In the category of whopping misinterpretation of the facts, a Dr. Mayer from Albany Medical College in New York writes in the Times Union web page on 6/24 , “There are fewer pharmaceutical detailers because the drug companies are shifting their advertising emphasis into the direct-to-the consumer ads.” His blog was on the need for regulating detail reps, but that is an aside. In fact, detail reps are being cut because they were no longer profitable. Too many reps were detailing the same products with little news to offer. The cutting of reps would have happened with or without the option of DTC.
As a follow up to the June hearings of Mr. Stupak and Mr. Dingell, the AMA web editorial concluded (June 9) that “DTC drug ads are a big business. Given its pervasiveness and questions about its impact, the industry is one that warrants more scrutiny and better regulation.” What does AMA want? They want a moratorium on new drug DTC ads with the length determined by FDA. They also want FDA pre-approval of DTC. Most drug companies will agree to a voluntary moratorium of 6-12 months, as some already have, but will not agree to pre-approval of the DTC ads. Pre-submission is acceptable but pre-approval is not.
Pharmaceutical Executive’s George Koroneos commented on 6/18 that the recent actions of drug companies on the 6 month moratorium “might not be enough to satisfy legislators looking for major pharma advertising reform.” I am sure he is correct in that assumption. No doubt the anticipated strengthened Democratic majority will keep the pressure on for more restrictions. Clearly Stupak and Dingell are not satisfied with the 6 month number.
The Wall Street Journal’s Jacob Goldstein commented (6/17) on several pharma companies’ 6 month agreed on moratorium. “The customary 6 month wait isn’t exactly an act of charity or contrition. Drugmakers generally want to send in their reps to tell doctors about new medicines before DTC ads drive waves of patients into their offices… ”
Scanning even the most obscure locations, I found a blog in the Duluth Daily Telegram web site (June 28) from Mike Savage. Humorist Savage says, “I’ve been wondering, would our next President be willing to make drug ads illegal..please?” He goes on to say that “Big Pharma won’t allow even Barack Obama to pull that off…” As a writer, Mr. Savage should be familiar with the first amendment and that even Barack Obama would have to allow commercial speech. He may get further regulation that makes it harder to execute television ads, but making them illegal, I think not.
In the category of the most blatantly obvious anti-industry title, the web site called Stop Drug Ads said on June 20 that “each year drug executives spend $4 billion on prescription drug ads… the ads are not educational and do not promote public health. They can be extremely dangerous, as the Vioxx tragedy shows.” Their purpose is to get support for legislation to ban all drug ads or if it is unconstitutional to do that, then they want more warnings, no tax deduction for marketing expenses and a 3% windfall profits tax. Who is on the board of this organization? Ralph Nader and many well known educators and public advocates are part of it. Ralph told me a few years ago that he knows it is likely unconstitutional to ban drug ads.
The Society for Women’s Health Research (June 17) had an interesting request of FDA. They want FDA to “require data collection on how DTC advertising affects women and men differently.” They feel gender differences are reported in drug approval, so why not understand gender differences in DTC ads?
In the anecdotal evidence is better than real facts department, The People’s Pharmacy blog of June 15 said “Most people tell us they hate TV drug ads.” They go on to say “Many ask us why the FDA permits such ads…” Oh really? None of the credible surveys on DTC suggest most people hate DTC ads. They may find them annoying at times, not suitable for their children, or hard to follow during the side effects section. But hate them? No, that is not what most people say.
In the debate over why drug companies do not use as much web media as other industries, John Mack of the Pharma Marketing Blog weighs in on June 30 . John believes “pharmaceutical marketers have a mass market mentality and do not view the Internet as a mass market medium.” I like John’s blogs because he actually does some data analysis that supports his views. He says non-pharma spends 7.3% of their budget on the Internet compared to 3.1% for pharma. This debate about why has been going on for years now. I think it is largely because the general Rx drug 50+ target audience is reachable on mass media compared to other products geared for under 35 age groups. I do not think pharma marketers dislike Internet per se or are lazy in considering it. It is up to Internet media to convince them they would get a better return spending more. One should not b lame the customer for not being faster adopters. I think if it does make sense, and I agree it does, then pharma marketers will use it more in the future. Of course legal and regulatory concerns also inhibit its use.
Genetic testing may be the next large category for DTC advertising. California and New York regulators are making it difficult for companies that do this testing by adding onerous and costly restrictions. Rick Weiss, writing on alternet.org June 26 says the “moves by California and New York are the clearest evidence yet that a federal leadership gap now threatens to undermine the pending benefits of the genomics revolution.” Weiss is correct that a myriad of differing state regulations make it impossible for these new tests to be made available to the public in a cost effective way. While states have the right to protect consumers from faulty or ineffective tests, it is hard to imagine they have the expertise to do this well. There must be a uniform national set of rules for approving and regulating home genomics testing.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
No one has to make DTC ads illegal. They were not before they came to be under Clinton. All that has to be done is require, like they were before Clinton all the disclosure labeling required of print ads once again making it impossible to fit into a TV ad.
We are only one of two countries that allow direct to consumer advertising of branded pharmaceuticals, we also have one of the highest rates of lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and lowest trust rates for big pharma. wonder if that could all be related?