~~Okay, once again Dr. Pfeiffer may be sounding a little cynical to some of you with that title. But if you will just bear with me for a few sentences I think you will agree with me that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful influences in our culture today. Not only do they make more money than many countries' gross national product, but they wield more political power than almost any other lobby in Washington. And yes, they do in fact control many of our citizens' lives too.
Let's look at some of the facts so that perhaps my title will become a little clearer to you. In 1997 the FDA changed its regulations and allowed television advertising of drugs. This approval came with the caveat that the drug manufacturer would also have to reveal all of the side effects associated with that particular drug. The FDA then "miraculously" revised that ruling that same year and stated that the drug companies would only need to meet an "adequate provision" in revealing side effects to consumers. Here is how the FDA justifies not requiring the drug manufacturer to reveal all of the side effects that a particular drug may have in a television ad. They state that since the "brief summery" which lists all side effects of a drug would take too long to scroll through or read on television, or on a radio ad, that is okay to just list the "most important" risk factors. As long that is, that the ad also gives you sources to look up all of the side effects. In their own words they state it this way; "This brief summary would take many minutes to read or scroll down a TV screen. The law allows broadcast ads to include only the most important risk information if the ads tell viewers or listeners how to get the full FDA-approved prescribing information, which has all the drug's risks."
You see it would probably take 5 or 10 minutes to read all of the side effects that are caused by many drugs. And this would not only bore the listener, but cost the drug companies millions more in advertising costs.
Now exactly where are you supposed to get the info about all of the rest of the side effects then? The answer is simple according to the FDA. That is, for those of you who wish to spend your time doing what they recommend. Here is what they recommend you do; "Broadcast ads can meet the "adequate provision" requirement by giving a number of sources for finding a drug's prescribing information. These include a healthcare provider (for example, a doctor), a toll-free telephone number, the current issue of a magazine that contains a print ad, a Web site address".
So there you have it. You can simply make an appointment with your doctor to discuss the drug that you saw on TV. You just have to take time out of your already busy schedule for the appointment, and in many instances pay for the visit. That is one of the inconvenient options to find out "if this drug is right for you", and what all of the side effects are.
Of course you can always call the toll free number listed, or in many cases spewed off by the announcer at the end of the ad. Unfortunately in most cases you will not have a pen and paper handy to jot down the number that you just forgot. Option three is to find a magazine that has the ad in it with all of the side effects. Good luck with that one too!
Then you can go to the web site. Oh, I just remembered that the demographic for many of the drugs that are advertised is not the twenty somethings. No, on the contrary it is generally the sixty or seventy somethings. That's right, the group that is less than computer savvy!
Well, you see that is why most listeners will never explore any of the "FDA approved options" to find out more about the unfortunate and often times life threatening side effects of many of the drugs being marketed directly to you by the drug manufacturers.
Let's just take a brief look at just how well this marketing effort has been working for the drug companies since 1997 when it was first allowed. As an example, overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53% in 2001. However, the top 10 drug makers in the U.S. saw a 32% increase in overall profits in the same time frame.
So, just how has the opportunity for Big Pharma to advertise directly to consumers worked out? Pretty well I would say according to an article published recently by Jonathan Cohn. He states that last year drug companies spent $5.2 billion on ads promoting specific drugs. This was an increase of 16% over the prior year. This at a time when many other industries are spending less on television advertising.
The pharmaceutical industry is doing this for a reason. That reason is the profits that this advertising is generating for them. According to an announcement in November of 2015 by the American Medical Association, that organization called for a ban on the practice of advertising drugs to the general public, stating that it is "fueling escalating drug prices. "Mr. Cohn goes on to state in his article; "Spending on prescription drugs already accounts for about one in every six dollars that go into medical care. Between 2013 and 2018, the government anticipates that the average annual increase in this spending will be about 7.3 percent-higher than the overall rate of health care inflation. One of the reasons for the increase is the massive sum that manufacturers pour into advertising."
Oh, by the way there are only two countries in the world that allow for drug advertising as we know it here in our country. One obviously is the United States. The other country has a whooping population of 4.5 million people, and that is New Zealand. Obviously the trendsetting effects of our "Big Pharma" corporations have not caught on with the rest of the civilized world. Isn't that FORTUNATE for them!
Register for our Family Health and Wellness Program
May 11 at 7p.m.
Learn more about getting and staying healthy!