A quick glance at the list of cosponsors reveals that it’s not.Bravo to Sanders and King! This should be a bipartisan issue.
It would also decrease sales which might actually increase per unit prices.Fully support this
No other country has direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising - and this would decrease expenditures by pharmaceutical companies significantly and therefore, also (hypothetically) help decrease the cost to consumers for pharmaceuticals.
No one wants to see drug ads for ring worm, rosacea, herpes or any other conditions in between programing and eating pizza.What is the harm in that advertising?
I see them on American networks that are part of my cable package.
Thanks to that advertising I know about some new pharmaceutical developments I might not have been aware of.
And yes I know my own MD should tell me about them. Some Doctors do, some don't.
I've not done any kind of research on this, but my assumption is that drug companies purchase ads because they believe doing so increases their long-term revenues and profits. I'm not sure why I should think that decreasing advertising opportunities would result in lower prices. Seems to give a lot of power to whatever companies make the best deals with the prescribing doctors behind the scenes.Fully support this
No other country has direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising - and this would decrease expenditures by pharmaceutical companies significantly and therefore, also (hypothetically) help decrease the cost to consumers for pharmaceuticals.
A few reasons.Why? I don't get the point of this.
It would likely just decrease the amount of product development for drugs that are not superior to other drugs, but are replacing a drug that is going generic.It would also decrease sales which might actually increase per unit prices.
Thanks for the response. But how is 1) a problem since consumers have to ask their doctor about it anyway? The doctor can and should inform them of those things before writing a prescription. As for 2), they may want you as a consumer to question the doctors who are on the hook of their competitors' reps. I think that is useful in an industry where so much shady marketing goes on behind the scenes.A few reasons.
1) Pharmaceutical companies don’t include a comprehensive list of side effects and complications in these ads.
2) The audience is inappropriate. Not being a doctor, they want you as a consumer to harangue the doctors and pharmacists who slipped the hook of their reps.
I get you. I hate the athlete's foot ads.I
No one wants to see drug ads for ring worm, rosacea, herpes or any other conditions in between programing and eating pizza.
"hey doc, I saw this awesome commercial for something called Skyrizi that might cause bleeding of the eyes and spontaneous combustion, hook me up".
Along with those sports betting commercials, get them off the air.
What is the harm in that advertising?
I see them on American networks that are part of my cable package.
Thanks to that advertising I know about some new pharmaceutical developments I might not have been aware of.
And yes I know my own MD should tell me about them. Some Doctors do, some don't.
Good pushing the idea that there's a pill for all your ills just evil.
And they are annoying as shit.
I disagree, who the hell is going to ask their doctor about a drug that they saw on TV? They're disturbing. The pharma industry should not have that much power to be able to infect American programing.I get you. I hate the athlete's foot ads.
I just see the benefit of public education for treatments that are beneficial.
Same here. I guess we must be of an age where they figure showing us commericals of tropicalIt always seems like 1/3rd of the ads I see on TV are pharmaceuticals, the other 1/3rd are credit card commercials, and the last 1/3rd is for various kinds of pet food and kitty litter.
Why would pharma companies engage in direct to consumer advertising if it didn't increase their sales beyond what they otherwise would be if they just marketed to doctors?Thanks for the response. But how is 1) a problem since consumers have to ask their doctor about it anyway? The doctor can and should inform them of those things before writing a prescription. As for 2), they may want you as a consumer to question the doctors who are on the hook of their competitors' reps. I think that is useful in an industry where so much shady marketing goes on behind the scenes.
The problem with that is doctors don’t make money by treating the sniffles. They make money by pushing pharmaceutical products in exchange for a slice of the profits. Doctors aren’t just doctors - they’re salesmen. As such, they don’t always act in the best interest of the patient. Hence the opioid crisis.Thanks for the response. But how is 1) a problem since consumers have to ask their doctor about it anyway? The doctor can and should inform them of those things before writing a prescription. As for 2), they may want you as a consumer to question the doctors who are on the hook of their competitors' reps. I think that is useful in an industry where so much shady marketing goes on behind the scenes.
Bernie Sanders and Angus King co-sponsor a bill that would prohibit consumer drug ads, echoing calls by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during his presidential campaign
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Angus King (I., Maine) introduced a bill Thursday that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.
The bill would prohibit any promotional communications targeting consumers, including through television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. It will apply to all prescription drug advertisements.
“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television,” Sanders said in a statement. “They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”
Bravo to Sanders and King! This should be a bipartisan issue. Only one other country in the world allows pharmaceutical advertising on television.
I agree with all of that, I guess I just think banning direct-to-consumer advertising puts consumers more at the mercy of salesman/drug-pushing doctors. They are less likely to be aware of and ask their doctors about alternative options.The problem with that is doctors don’t make money by treating the sniffles. They make money by pushing pharmaceutical products in exchange for a slice of the profits. Doctors aren’t just doctors - they’re salesmen. As such, they don’t always act in the best interest of the patient. Hence the opioid crisis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?