Should prescription drug advertising be legal?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know, those, "Ask your doctor about blah blah blah" ads, which then go on in the long narration quickly about all the potential side effects.

There's actually only two countries in the world where this is legal: The US and New Zealand. Has always struck me as kind of pointless. I really hope doctors aren't being swayed by ads or patients asking about things because of ads. I doubt that's the case so I don't see it as a huge deal, but I really don't see much of a purpose for this.

[TNF]

Advertising, as a general rule, should be limited to trade journals only.

[bedstuy]

There's a lot of advertising on TV that I've never understood.  Like ads for BNSF rail network.  Is there anyone at home saying, "dude, I should totally transport my freight on that railroad!" I bet not, but they must serve some purpose.  These advertisements must work because drug companies are paying millions of dollars to create and air them. 

The con argument is pretty straightforward and I might agree with it, especially in principle.  I don't think medicine should be for-profit. 

That said, advertisements are a type of free speech.  And, perhaps, some people are learning of a new drug for their chronic illness which would help them and then, discussing it with their doctor. 

There's also a brand loyalty and barrier to entry issue.  Let's say there's currently a drug for a disease and Merck's drug has 95% market share, but I have a new drug that's 5% better.  A lot of people will just stick with what they know on brand loyalty, especially if I can't get the word out about my new drug.  That creates a disincentive to creating new drugs.  Marketing might allow new drugs to enter the market and compete with the established brand name drugs.

[Indy Texas]

There's a lot of advertising on TV that I've never understood.  Like ads for BNSF rail network.  Is there anyone at home saying, "dude, I should totally transport my freight on that railroad!" I bet not, but they must serve some purpose.  These advertisements must work because drug companies are paying millions of dollars to create and air them. 

The con argument is pretty straightforward and I might agree with it, especially in principle.  I don't think medicine should be for-profit. 

That said, advertisements are a type of free speech.  And, perhaps, some people are learning of a new drug for their chronic illness which would help them and then, discussing it with their doctor. 

There's also a brand loyalty and barrier to entry issue.  Let's say there's currently a drug for a disease and Merck's drug has 95% market share, but I have a new drug that's 5% better.  A lot of people will just stick with what they know on brand loyalty, especially if I can't get the word out about my new drug.  That creates a disincentive to creating new drugs.  Marketing might allow new drugs to enter the market and compete with the established brand name drugs.

Except that "a lot of people" do not write their prescriptions. Their doctors do.

My father is a physician and any physician will tell you that the last thing they want is for you to "talk to your doctor about Medication X." Ultimately, that decision rests with a physician. Not a patient. Not a salesman for the drug company. Not the chemist or the biomedical engineer who developed the drug.

[bedstuy]

There's a lot of advertising on TV that I've never understood.  Like ads for BNSF rail network.  Is there anyone at home saying, "dude, I should totally transport my freight on that railroad!" I bet not, but they must serve some purpose.  These advertisements must work because drug companies are paying millions of dollars to create and air them. 

The con argument is pretty straightforward and I might agree with it, especially in principle.  I don't think medicine should be for-profit. 

That said, advertisements are a type of free speech.  And, perhaps, some people are learning of a new drug for their chronic illness which would help them and then, discussing it with their doctor. 

There's also a brand loyalty and barrier to entry issue.  Let's say there's currently a drug for a disease and Merck's drug has 95% market share, but I have a new drug that's 5% better.  A lot of people will just stick with what they know on brand loyalty, especially if I can't get the word out about my new drug.  That creates a disincentive to creating new drugs.  Marketing might allow new drugs to enter the market and compete with the established brand name drugs.

Except that "a lot of people" do not write their prescriptions. Their doctors do.

My father is a physician and any physician will tell you that the last thing they want is for you to "talk to your doctor about Medication X." Ultimately, that decision rests with a physician. Not a patient. Not a salesman for the drug company. Not the chemist or the biomedical engineer who developed the drug.

Most of these drugs are for chronic illnesses.  Some people are basically just going to have their doctor keep renewing the same prescription over and over again.  So, there's not necessarily good medical practice going on where the person's doctor is carefully managing their prescriptions.

The other point is that a patient's doctor may say, "hey, I see you're on drug X, we could also try drug Y which is different in these ways... ."  Sometimes a doctor is going to ask the patient what they prefer and whether they want to try the new drug.  A patient who's never heard of drug Y may be averse to trying it out, even if it's better.

[Lief 🗽]

Most advertising should be illegal.

[dead0man]

I'm not a fan of banning things I don't like (and I certainly don't like them) so I'm not for banning them, but I must question the value they think they're getting out of the ads.  Do people not know there are boner pills?  Is your doctor not telling you about the badass new inhaler that might help you?  Clearly the drug companies need to give more ink pens out.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Of course.  (Freedom lover normal)

[AggregateDemand]

How do patients benefit if they are kept in the dark?

Rx drug advertising is banned in other countries to suppress demand and cost. If moral sentiments support either side, it's probably freedom of advertising/information.

[Del Tachi]

Of course.  (Freedom lover normal)

[Cory]

You know, those, "Ask your doctor about blah blah blah" ads, which then go on in the long narration quickly about all the potential side effects.

There's actually only two countries in the world where this is legal: The US and New Zealand. Has always struck me as kind of pointless. I really hope doctors aren't being swayed by ads or patients asking about things because of ads. I doubt that's the case so I don't see it as a huge deal, but I really don't see much of a purpose for this.

This is the case, and it's a huge deal. The drug companies even send salespeople to tell doctors how much more money they make if the prescribe such-and-such drug.

[Goldwater]

Of course.  (Freedom lover normal)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most advertising should be illegal.

So how does most TV stay around? Actually how do most websites, including Atlas stay around then?

[Goldwater]

Most advertising should be illegal.

So how does most TV stay around? Actually how do most websites, including Atlas stay around then?

Government subsidies, of course!

[bedstuy]

Most advertising should be illegal.

So how does most TV stay around? Actually how do most websites, including Atlas stay around then?

What would happen to Don Draper!?

[Torie]

I loathe them, and putting aside Constitutional issues, would ban them. They are designed to create demand for expensive patented drugs (the higher cost of which is almost all paid by a third party payer, so the consumer doesn't care much, if at all, about cost), that are slightly modified from drugs that have gone generic (e.g., hawking Nexium in lieu of the now generic Prilosec, which does just about the same thing, and costs a tenth as much). Big Pharma is the next worst thing too big to fail banks.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I loathe them, and putting aside Constitutional issues, would ban them. They are designed to create demand for expensive patented drugs (the higher cost of which is almost all paid by a third party payer, so the consumer doesn't care much, if at all, about cost), that are slightly modified from drugs that have gone generic (e.g., hawking Nexium in lieu of the now generic Prilosec, which does just about the same thing, and costs a tenth as much). Big Pharma is the next worst thing to big too big to fail banks.

But what about ones like the boner drugs - Cialis and Viagra, where no generics exist?  They shouldn't tout the differences between the two?

[angus]

any physician will tell you that the last thing they want is for you to "talk to your doctor about Medication X." Ultimately, that decision rests with a physician. Not a patient.

Not any, but many, unfortunately.  We finally found a good pediatrician for my son just last week, after living here more than a year and a half.  We have this problem each time we move.  Sometimes we have good luck and the first one we see is good and we stick with him or her.  Usually, we go through three or four before we find one we like.  There are a few physicians who listen to their patients, and understand that ultimately, all decisions regarding health and medicine rest with the patient--or with his parents if he is a child--and not with the medical service workers.   

To the OP:  I voted yes.  Not necessarily because I think it's effective or any reason related to my post above, but because I oppose censorship in general.  Ideological reasons, I suppose, but that's why.

[angus]

But what about ones like the boner drugs - Cialis and Viagra, where no generics exist?  They shouldn't tout the differences between the two?

I don't know about you, but nothing gives me a raging hard-on faster than seeing two old people reclining in adjacent ceramic bathtubs while the setting sun burns their eyes.

[Torie]

I loathe them, and putting aside Constitutional issues, would ban them. They are designed to create demand for expensive patented drugs (the higher cost of which is almost all paid by a third party payer, so the consumer doesn't care much, if at all, about cost), that are slightly modified from drugs that have gone generic (e.g., hawking Nexium in lieu of the now generic Prilosec, which does just about the same thing, and costs a tenth as much). Big Pharma is the next worst thing to big too big to fail banks.

But what about ones like the boner drugs - Cialis and Viagra, where no generics exist?  They shouldn't tout the differences between the two?

That's less egregious, but most of the advertising about, "ask your doctor about X," is driven by a business plan to steer consumers away from just as good generics, where the patent has expired.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I loathe them, and putting aside Constitutional issues, would ban them. They are designed to create demand for expensive patented drugs (the higher cost of which is almost all paid by a third party payer, so the consumer doesn't care much, if at all, about cost), that are slightly modified from drugs that have gone generic (e.g., hawking Nexium in lieu of the now generic Prilosec, which does just about the same thing, and costs a tenth as much). Big Pharma is the next worst thing to big too big to fail banks.

But what about ones like the boner drugs - Cialis and Viagra, where no generics exist?  They shouldn't tout the differences between the two?

That's less egregious, but most of the advertising about, "ask your doctor about X," is driven by a business plan to steer consumers away from just as good generics, where the patent has expired.

What's strange about that, Torie, is most health plans mandate the generics and very few doctors can be manhandled into prescribing the name brands.  I don't get why they waste their money in those cases.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

But what about ones like the boner drugs - Cialis and Viagra, where no generics exist?  They shouldn't tout the differences between the two?

I don't know about you, but nothing gives me a raging hard-on faster than seeing two old people reclining in adjacent ceramic bathtubs while the setting sun burns their eyes.

I'm sportin' right now just thinking about it.

[angus]

[Torie]

I loathe them, and putting aside Constitutional issues, would ban them. They are designed to create demand for expensive patented drugs (the higher cost of which is almost all paid by a third party payer, so the consumer doesn't care much, if at all, about cost), that are slightly modified from drugs that have gone generic (e.g., hawking Nexium in lieu of the now generic Prilosec, which does just about the same thing, and costs a tenth as much). Big Pharma is the next worst thing to big too big to fail banks.

But what about ones like the boner drugs - Cialis and Viagra, where no generics exist?  They shouldn't tout the differences between the two?

That's less egregious, but most of the advertising about, "ask your doctor about X," is driven by a business plan to steer consumers away from just as good generics, where the patent has expired.

What's strange about that, Torie, is most health plans mandate the generics and very few doctors can be manhandled into prescribing the name brands.  I don't get why they waste their money in those cases.

I think a doc can write a statement of need, and override the default choice of the generic drug. I arranged that for Humira, when it was only authorized by the medical insurer for arthritic psoriasis, as opposed to the non arthritic kind, which variant, thank heavens, I have.

[courts]

of course not (anti capitalist)