<pause for large round of congratulations from bystanders>
While watching a commercial for Zorax (or maybe it was Zolorix, or possibly Zylorex), I wondered what the pharmaceutical company expects me to do after watching their commercial. These seem to be my options:
Become paraniod by listening to the short list of symptoms and then start suspecting that I might have some of them. (“You know, I was short of breath a couple of times last month!”)
If already diagnosed with the disease or condition at hand, go at once to my doctor and ask to be placed on a different medication because I just saw it on television. (“How dare you prescribe liquids and bed rest! I want Zorax, or maybe Zolorix, or possibly Zylorex!”)
If diagnosed after seeing the commercial, call into question my doctor’s competency because he failed to place me on medication that is not represented by a slick commercial with cool CGI depicting various internal organs dancing happily about after being treated with the advertized medication.
Unless you are going to say that the commercials are aimed at doctors, I don’t think they have much use and might actually do harm. Suppose some ordinary well-meanign but sick person gets hold of some Zorax and decides to medicate himself.
What is the pharmaceutical company trying to do here?* An advertisement is supposed to convince consumers of a product’s value. But consumers are not qualified to judge the value of prescription-only medication. Therefore, these kinds of ads seem to be cons (as in con artist) in the sense that the uneducated consumer’s confidence is trying to be won based mainly on the product’s presentation.
[sub]*Congratulations! You found the general question![/sub]
I think that #1 is pretty much true. More of the ads are for things that are sort of a nuisance like hay fever etc. A lot of people might not go to a doctor for these. they just grin and bear it thinking there is not much the Doc can do about it.
So you are saying that they are really being unselfish and noble by trying to alert suffering consumers that there just might be hope for our various afflictions.
I hadn’t thought of that, but it still seems dubious.
I would like someone in the advertising business to answer the OP as well.
I remember ENDLESS advertising for Prilosec (sp?) and it was called “the little purple pill” and had a purple-themed campaign.
The trouble was, they never told you what medical condition Prilosec was for or what Prilosec did! Un-be-friggin-lievable.
So: a) when your doctor told you that you were suffering from arthritis, you couldn’t ask that he prescribe you Prilosec for it because you didn’t know what Prilosec was for.
nor could you
b) march in to your doctor’s office and demand that he give you Prilosec, because Prilosec is so good at… well… what’s it good at doing?
What idiots. To this day, all I know is that Prilosec is a “little purple pill.” 15 kazillion dollars spent on the ad campaign too. Way to go, Advertising Einsteins.
“A specific example of self-care might include the recent phenomenon of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for pharmaceuticals. In 1997, more than $1 billion was spent on these DTC advertisements, featured in all of the leading lay publications and on television. I am sure many readers are familiar with the Allegra, Pravachol and Prilosec advertisements. My children can even recite some of the jingles! A 1997 survey found that 63% of all consumers could recall seeing a DTC advertisement and that 27% of them asked their doctor about a specific medical condition because of viewing a DTC ad.”
I recently saw a US news report where a consumer group bemoaned the billions extra paid for drugs in the US since DTC was allowed. They showed consumers in the northern states who go on bus trips to Canada where the same drugs are half the price.
From what I understand, the outrageous cost of prescription meds is due in part to these irritating (and quite lengthy) commercials. Given a choice by a doctor, I would ask for a non-commercial medication in hopes that the drug manufacturers would get the message and remove their creepy (and expensive) ads from my t.v.
A Google search on “prescription medication commercials” produced several interesting articles on the topic.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IBBen *
**From what I understand, the outrageous cost of prescription meds is due in part to these irritating (and quite lengthy) commercials. Given a choice by a doctor, I would ask for a non-commercial medication in hopes that the drug manufacturers would get the message and remove their creepy (and expensive) ads from my t.v.
[QUOTE]
I wonder how true that statement really is, since for other than a certain urinary-tract-infection-fighting medicine, haven’t prescription drugs stayed more or less in line with other consumer prices? I ask this because this phenomenon of drug advertising is still new, relatively speaking. It had been illegal up until, oh, '97 or so.
(sneaking an opinion in)
We should just give up the idea of prescriptions altogether and let anyone advertise the medicines. I DON’T need to see a doctor for some freakin’ 2% Selnium Sulfide!
(end opinion)
It makes sense for certain drugs. One anti-depressants. Many people need these drugs but are ashamed. Or they don’t know. They may say hey I have those symptoms, maybe I should look into this.
Many people with anxiety attacks think the only way to help is tranquilizers though Anti-depressants are better.
Clariton is SAFER than over the counter anithistimines.
The only one I hated was the PURPLE PILL. Like the other poster said, it didn’t even say what it was for.
Direct-to-consumer/patient advertising is really sleazy, IMNSHO. It’s the profit side running amok without the proper restraints that the FDA used to have.
Several have remarked the lack of indication, i.e. “They don’t even tell you what it’s for”. That’s quite intentional, I can assure you. If you mention in the ad what the medicine is used for (indication) you have to provide a disclosure statement also. Check your sunday magazine section, usually the Celebrex and Vioxx ads are there, and on the next page 3 columns of Clarence Darrow meets medicinal chemistry.
The companies didn’t even mention the names of the drugs: “The Doctor will see you now…Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals” was the tagline for Seldane, an earlier non-sedating antihistamine one of two in that class that has since been withdrawn from the market.
Lately, though, Prilosec has been touting its use in its TV ads, with a “check our website” fulfilling the disclosure requirement.
It’s wrong to place brand names in the forefront of the patient’s mind like that. It pressures the entire system to “give me what I saw on TV” when it may not be the best choice to make. These drugs are powerful things, folks. They are only available by prescription * for a very good reason*. In a nutshell, prescription drugs can do harm if you don’t take them right. OTC drugs (for the most part) have stood the test of time and can be used without harm even if you don’t have the particular problem they’re trying to treat.
Folks, it’s tough enough just trying to diagnose, treat, dispense, follow up, and go on to the next patient without worrying that the patient wants the drug he saw advertised at the game last night. There are a lot of people out there with very healthy skepticism of anything they see on TV except for medical advice. I wish these commercials could be as easily dismissed as the fast food and beer spots but I can tell you they aren’t.
Think about the now-not-so-lonely gastroenterologist (is that how it’s spelled?) once busy only trying to get a job at Maytag, now spends day after day seeing patients who used to take Tums.
The gastrowhatsie I talked to a while back thinks digestive disorders are on the rise, but I’d guess that people have been watching TV commercials and now know that there are alternatives to large boxes of Tums. These people are happy to see the doctor and get a more effective medication.
Now, I’m not crazy about all the med ads I see on TV but this is one instance where I think it has been helpful.
Pick up a medical journal and you see tons of drug ads. That used to be the only place they were allowed.
BTW, they don’t have to mention side effects if they don’t name the drug. That’s why you see some ads that just say “a treatment is available for ED, see your doctor.” Of course everyone knows the ad is for Viagra, but technically they don’t say that. It’s a loophole in the rules on the ads. If they start talking about the drug name and what it does, they are required to list the most often side effects.
“May causes gas or oily discharge, loose bowels or the inability to control them…” Whoo hoo! Sign me up! (Notice you haven’t seen whatever that was advertised on TV anymore?)
I also love it when a commercial gets interrupted (where it starts playing and then gets cut off by another commercial). My personal fav (which has become a joke between my hubby and I) was, “I take Zovirax for my genital herpes…” Pause. New commercial. We totally cracked up–“Good for you! Thanks for sharing!”
Well, the question has been answered, but it boils down to this.
They run the ad hoping that more people will buy their product and it works.
They don’t care about the mechanism, they don’t care about the ethics, they don’t care if people are taking their medication unnecessarily. All they care about is profits.
And IMHO, the people who are going to a doctor for the first time rather than buying large boxes of Tums should have been paying attention. My package of Tums states “Do not take maximum dose more than two weeks without consulting a physician”. Basically, I believe that anyone who has a continuing or major health problem should educate themselves, and be working with a physician they trust. And we should know that advertising is not education.
Ahhh, the Zovirax commercial - one of the ones that pisses me off the most - “I have control of my life again! I only have to take pills for three days instead of five!” Like taking those extra pills (which should take, what, a TOTAL of five minutes in those two days) is the most demanding part of your day.
I think this characterization is totally unfair. The fact is that in this country we do have a system whereby these substances are blocked from people that don’t really need them. To the extent that this process has holes in it, that’s the FDA’s fault, not the manufacturers.
Before such advertising, patients had to accept whatever their doctors gave them. Which is OK if you’ve got a good doctor. Except that it’s nearly impossible to evaluate whether your doctor is any good or not. Furthermore, many doctors (this is anecdotal, but it also seems pretty common) have an ivory tower attitude towards medicine, choosing to keep their treatment rationales secret from the patient who is actually the one suffering. Now that medical ads are common, people who had been too shy to polite to fuss when they weren’t happy with their care now have a mechanism to do so. If their doctor does in fact have a reason to choose one treatment option over the one advertised, he can explain that to the patient. And those of us who had been leaving medical conditions untreated because we didn’t think they were important are catalyzed to get professional help. I think these ads are great – they engender people to treat whatever conditions they have and thereby lead to better health care, while the doctor’s traditional gatekeeping function is maintained so that drugs are not going to patients who shouldn’t be taking them.
There is a control placed on many of these drugs (and I mean the newer, more expensive drugs, not necessarily those that are the most heavily advertised on television) by insurance companies. The insurance companies are unwilling to cover these drugs unless the patient meets certain requirements; among them, the patient has to take and fail a trial of generic or less-expensive drugs. In the case of a cholesterol-reducing drug, the patient might be required to try a diet first.
So, thanks to the insurance companies, the drug companies can’t always get their hooks into us through advertising.
