Should Pharmaceutical Companies Be Allowed to Advertise to Consumers Directly?

1. Introduction

In the United States, pharmaceuticals are an almost four hundred billion dollar industry. Though regulated by the FDA, these companies have been advertising directly to consumers since 1962, something that is only allowed in America and New Zealand (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). Many feel that pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to directly advertise to consumers because it encourages them to seek necessary medical attention, it increases the number of medical conditions being properly treated, it helps to remove the stigma surrounding specific medical problems, and helps fund further drug research and development. Despite these benefits, though, there are many who feel that these companies should not be allowed to advertise controlled medications directly to the public. They feel that direct to consumer ads can misinform the public, the ads are released before we know enough about the long term effects of the medications, and they can stigmatize normal and bodily function.

2. Yes, They Should

One of the arguments in favor of pharmaceutical companies advertising directly to consumers is that they encourage people to seek medical advice or help for something they may have dismissed. In a FDA survey conducted in April 2013, it was found that sixty four percent of physicians felt that direct-to-consumer ads have encouraged patients to discuss health concerns with a professional (Meyer). When patients discuss their concerns with a doctor, it often times does not end up benefiting the company that sponsored the commercial, anyway; while twenty nine million patients spoke with their doctors about a medical problem after seeing a pharmaceutical ad (such as the ones prevalent for allergy relief), more than half of them ended up receiving either non-prescription drugs or generic brands, and many of the others discussed lifestyle changes as opposed to a prescription (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). These ads even have the same effect on demographics that are less likely to seek medical advice. Typically, patients with less income and education levels seek less medical advice than their higher-earning, higher-educated counterparts. However, research shows that the majority of people feel that not only have direct to consumer advertisements increased their awareness to available solutions to medical problems, but they also feel that the ads gave them enough material to decide whether or not to seek medical advice  (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). Direct to consumer pharmaceutical ads have inspired patients to seek medical attention for problems they may have otherwise ignored, which would allow adverse effects on their health to continue without intervention.

In congruence with an increase in awareness and patients seeking medical attention, direct to consumer prescription drug advertisements increase the likelihood of medical conditions being treated. An FDA survey found that of physicians who have has patients ask them about drugs seen in direct to consumer advertisements, eighty eight percent of them reported that their patients really did have the conditions that the drugs were made to treat (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). Procrit, a drug used to in the treatment of anemia and to help chemotherapy patients battle fatigue, is a perfect example. Before advertisements, Procrit was hardly ever prescribed because fatigue was rarely reported by chemotherapy patients because they thought it was unrelated. Once the ads aired, though, patients began reporting it to their doctors and they were properly diagnosed (Ventola). In a similar case, a drug that was approved by the FDA for fibromyalgia in 2007 was the first of its kind. Patients who were experiencing these problems saw pharmaceutical advertisements and were made aware of this new possible treatment, inspiring them to talk to medical professionals and seek treatment (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). Without those advertisements, countless people could have continued to live with conditions that could be treated.

Another reason some are in favor of direct to consumer drug ads is that they can assist in the removal of stigma attached to certain conditions. A 2013 survey found that more than half of doctors think that these advertisements help eliminate stigma related with specific medical conditions (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). This can make it easier for people to acknowledge their health problems and makes them feel comfortable enough to speak with a medical professional about their concerns and take control of their healthcare. There is a particular stigma surrounding mental illness, causing many people to suffer in silence when help is readily available. Advertisements for medication that can help treat mental illnesses like depression or anxiety disorders have added to the de-stigmatization of these conditions and has encouraged patients to seek professional health (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). In addition, advertisements for Viagra had the same effect on male sexual dysfunction; when people realized it was a common problem that was not exclusive to them, they were more likely to seek the help of a medical professional and get treatment.

A final reason that many are in favor of pharmaceutical companies advertising to consumers directly is that when the companies make money as a result of the ads, they are able to use that money for new research and development. Drug development is incredibly expensive; a cost that matches its importance. The average cost of developing a single medication is between four and eleven billion dollars (Porter). The money made to develop new medicines is made through advertising. For every dollar that is spent on direct to consumer advertisements, prescription drug sales rise by more than four dollars (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). After a company develops a new drug, they are given a period of time before other companies are able to produce generic versions. During this time, the company will use advertisements to boost sales in an attempt to recoup their research and development costs before a flood of generic versions of the drug drive the prices down.

3. No, They Should Not

Those against direct to consumer drug ads feel that they irresponsibly misinform patients. The same FDA survey that found that most physicians felt these ads encouraged patients to talk to doctors about medical concerns also revealed that sixty three percent of physicians feel that those same ads misinform patients and almost three quarters of them feel that the ads exaggerated the drugs’ benefits (Meyer). Actually, it has been proven that these advertisements often contain lacking in reliability. A 2013 study published by the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that sixty percent of claims these kinds of advertisements made between 2008 and 2010 conveniently left out valuable information, exaggerated claims, provided opinions, or made arbitrary associations with certain lifestyles (Faerber and Kreling). Furthermore, the study revealed that forty three percent of the claims made in direct to consumer drug ads were “objectively true”, fifty five percent were “potentially misleading”, and two percent were outright “false” (Faerber and Kreling). Other studies have revealed information that supports these findings. Direct to consumer ads for prescription drugs are often above the eighth grade reading level, which is the recommendation for information that is mass distributed; this means that many consumers are unable to fully comprehend the data being offered to them (Ventola). In addition, they tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the benefits of the medication and skim over the harmful side effects. Between 1997 and 2006, eighty four percent of the regulatory letters that the FDA sends were for exaggerating effectiveness or minimizing risks (Ventola). While it may be beneficial to provide information to patients, it does no good if the information is not reliable. 

A second reason that some oppose direct to consumer drug ads is that the ads are run before there is information on the long-term safety of the drug, such as those drugs used to curb nicotine addiction. Studies show that almost seventy percent of doctors feel that medications are often marketed before an accurate safety profile has been developed (Meyer). This can be misleading, as forty three percent of consumers assume that drugs are proven to be totally safe before they are marketed to the public (Meyer). This is definitely not always the case. Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis and offer pain relief, was heavily advertised beginning in 1999, which led to many patient requests and prescriptions for the next five years (“Vioxx, What is it? Its Uses and Interactions”). In 2004, it was removed from the market because it was found to cause strokes and heart attacks; Vioxx was recorded as the cause of death in more than four and a half thousand mortalities in six and a half years (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”). Vioxx is not alone, though; several other once-popular medications were removed from shelves after their release and advertisement to the public. Some examples include: Bextra, also used for arthritis relief; Cylert, for ADHD; Quaalude, an aid in sleeping; and Zelnorm, which is used for irritable bowel syndrome (Meyer). Since the 1970s, at least thirty five different drugs have been pulled from the public because of safety concerns (“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers”). Drugs should not be marketing to the public if we are not even sure about the effects they may have. 

Another reason some are against pharmaceutical companies advertising directly to consumers is that they medicalize and stigmatize regular bodily functions. Direct to consumer prescription drug ads have contributed to a recent rush to remedy natural things like the aging process, wrinkles, and lower testosterone levels. All of these things are completely normal but drug advertisement has turned them into conditions that require medical treatment. Such advertisements trick consumers into thinking that these natural things are bad, stigmatizing something that should not even be a problem. For example, Botox is used to reverse wrinkles and Lattisse is used to thicken thin eyelashes, both of which are normal side effects to aging. AndorGel is marketing for “Low T”, or low testosterone that can result in male sexual dysfunction. Their advertisements say things like, “Some men may think loss of energy is just a part of aging. However, low energy may not just be a sign of getting older- it may also be a symptom of Low T” (“Is it Low T?”). That statement is as misleading as it is ridiculous; Low T, or low testosterone, is a normal sign of aging. Such ads can greatly distort the reality of normal feelings and sensations and make patients think that they need medication to correct something natural.

4. Conclusion 

Despite the fact that it has been happening for decades, the debate over whether or not pharmaceutical companies should be able to advertise directly to consumers is a hot one. While advocates feel that these ads help encourage patients to seek medical care, increases the number of cases being treated, destigmatizes certain conditions, and helps fund further research, others still oppose such advertisements. They feel that these ads misinform the public, air before long term effects are fully understood, and stigmatize regular bodily functions.

Works Cited

Faerber, Adrienne E., and David H. Kreling. “Content Analysis of False Advertising and Misleading Claims in Television Advertising for Prescription and Nonprescription Drugs.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 29.1 (2014): 110-118. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889958/>

 “Is it Low T?” Is it Low T?. Abbvie, n.d. Web. 17 Jul. 2016. <http://www.isitlowt.com>

Meyer, Richard. “Majority of physicians believe DTC ads should be cut back”. World of DTC Marketing. WordPress, 30, Apr. 2013. Web. 27 Jul. 2016 <http://worldofdtcmarketing.com/majority-of-physicians-believe-dtc-ads-should-be-cut-back/prescription-drug-dtc-marketing/>

Porter, Dayna M. “Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Pharmaceutical Marketing: Impacts and Policy Implications”. 7.1 (2011): n.p. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. <http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/spnhareview/vol7/iss1/5>

“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?”. ProCon.org. ProCon.org, 2016. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. <http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/>

Ventola, C. Lee. “Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising”. Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 36.10 (2011): 669-684. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/>

“Vioxx, What is it? Its Uses and Interactions”. Drug Watch. Drug Watch, n.d. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. <https://www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/>