Senators Propose Ban on Drug Advertising to Consumers

[Allan]

From what I understand, the reason so many drugs in the United States is because of the cost of marketing the drugs directly to consumers and patients. As far as I am concerned, the only people who need to know about and keep up-to-date with the most-recently developed drugs are actual practitioners of medicine.

That's a position all but two countries agree with.

 

[Greenbeard]

Anything that helps get Americans off their pharma addiction is a good thing. Americans spend ~2.5 times the OECD average on Pharma, yet have the shortest life expectancy among the wealthy countries. One of the (probably intended) side effects of constant pharma advertising is that it 'normalizes' the idea of taking pharma drugs, and we see that in American consumption rates. Pharma has become the lazy mans wellness. Don't need to lose weight, exercise more, change my diet, or change my lifestyle, just pop some more pills.

Given that prices are significantly higher in the U.S., higher spending on pharmaceuticals here doesn’t necessarily imply greater usage.

 

[Napoleon]

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.

I'd rather ban the other kind of advertising you are talking about.

I can appreciate that in principle.

 

[Allan]

I disagree, who the hell is going to ask their doctor about a drug that they saw on TV?

I have. I asked about Champix. It was prescribed and worked.

I also learned that a newer Shingles vaccine was much more effective that an earlier version I'd received.

Obviously the advertising works or they wouldn't be doing it. So enough patients are asking their doctors to make it worth while.

 

[anatta]

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.

lol.. consumers become the new "detail men"

 

[Nickyjo]

What I am waiting for in these ads is for their ending comments warning about side effects to include the phrase “some people have dropped dead immediately upon taking our product.”

 

[HenryChinaski]

I have. I asked about Champix. It was prescribed and worked.

I also learned that a newer Shingles vaccine was much more effective that an earlier version I'd received.

Obviously the advertising works or they wouldn't be doing it. So enough patients are asking their doctors to make it worth while.

That is just bizarre. No way,

 

[Allan]

That is just bizarre. No way,

No way what?

 

[HenryChinaski]

No way what?

That anyone enjoying an evening of programming would want to ask their doctor about some drug that they saw on TV, especially with disclaimer side effects like may include weight gain, dizziness, swollen taint, and fatal car crashes. It’s bizarre that anybody would think that’s a good idea. If one has a medical problem, they’re gonna go to their doctor for advice anyway.

 

[Greenbeard]

What I am waiting for in these ads is for their ending comments warning about side effects to include the phrase “some people have dropped dead immediately upon taking our product.”

It would be much more passive voice than that. “Sudden death has happened after use.”

 

[Allan]

That anyone enjoying an evening of programming would want to ask their doctor about some drug that they saw on TV,

Well they obviously are or they wouldn't be doing the advertising.

If one has a medical problem, they’re gonna go to their doctor for advice anyway.

My own example - Shingles vaccine - was not a medical problem. It was a preventive treatment for a condition I learned about via the advertising.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Well they obviously are or they wouldn't be doing the advertising.



My own example - Shingles vaccine - was not a medical problem. It was a preventive treatment for a condition I learned about via the advertising.

An on-point physician is going to go over shingles vaccine options with a patient during a regular check up if you’re in the at-risk age group. There’s no way in hell I would ask my doctor about some rando drug I saw on TV..
when I’m watching television, I don’t wanna be invaded by drug ads. It’s inappropriate, and cringeworthy especially when half the commercial is talking about the side effects which may cause seizures and death.

 

[Demon]

...I will miss ads for products that will relieve eczema but whose side effects include suicidal ideation, diarrhea, and genial warts.

I will miss all the cheerful detailing of the side affects - parasites, heart failure, cancer, liver and or kidney damage....uncontrollable movements - and then a drug for the uncontrollable movements which can cause uncontrollable movements.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Mommy state must protect me from seeing things I shouldn't.

The whole world besides the US and New Zealand is a mommy state?

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-to-propose-ban-on-drug-advertising-to-consumers-9ad257c2?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAh08rw1K3wd_Iq6daCc6SB_KKUxLiI58eHhD1r5nRQzOGzgEpOQnCXoqrI9yG0%3D&gaa_ts=684c84b5&gaa_sig=r-ockDJ1Qe8MrJ0f08TOpJ2IDgsAi3LAby0PRaEzLbARBtFVjbPPkdm3CYwxtMVSiY3j6Z_xHfAlMP4r0k8G6w%3D%3D

Bravo to Sanders and King! This should be a bipartisan issue. Only one other country in the world allows pharmaceutical advertising on television.

So you want to censor information about health care to the private individual? Why shouldn't we be aware of what's out there?

 

[Allan]

An on-point physician is going to go over shingles vaccine options with a patient during a regular check up if you’re in the at-risk age group.

Some do, some don't.

There’s no way in hell I would ask my doctor about some rando drug I saw on TV..
when I’m watching television, I don’t wanna be invaded by drug ads. It’s inappropriate, and cringeworthy especially when half the commercial is talking about the side effects which may cause seizures and death.

You keep talking about side effects. Those are a requirement and are also included in the drug's information package.

I'm not sure why you're hung up on it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Some do, some don't.



You keep talking about side effects. Those are a requirement and are also included in the drug's information package.

I'm not sure why you're hung up on it.

And many don't do regular wellness visits, going only when they think they are sick. So seeing it brings it to their attention. I know the left likes to hide things from the public. Particularly the truth. Tell millionaire Bernie to shut the F up.

 

[multivita-man]

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.

Well, for one thing, they're really annoying.

I guess they're just giving people information, which isn't that harmful, I reckon.

 

[NOLA Dude]

“When you buy a pharmaceutical drug, my agency in most cases is gonna have to pay for it.”

“So the taxpayers are paying for it.”

“So it's a very unusual product in that way.”

“The taxpayers are paying for the ad, and then the person who gets that product is billing the government for it.”

“We're looking at this now with the White House, and ways we can get by that Supreme Court decision.”

 

[Allan]

And many don't do regular wellness visits, going only when they think they are sick

Especially when they have to pay for it.

Also men tend to avoid the doctor until they see blood pouring from orifices.

 

[BirdinHand]

And many don't do regular wellness visits, going only when they think they are sick. So seeing it brings it to their attention. I know the left likes to hide things from the public. Particularly the truth. Tell millionaire Bernie to shut the F up.

The entirety of the internet is available to individuals to look up potential drugs - pharmaceutical advertising is BILLIONS of dollars annually.

Who pays for that? American consumers.

If we want to move away from a profit driven healthcare system - this is a step in that direction.

People need education and information and affordable healthcare - they don’t need flashy expensive advertising.

 

[Allan]

Well, for one thing, they're really annoying.

They are annoying but so are most commercials. Reverse mortgages, gambling, useless supplements, flimsy exercise equipment...all drive me nuts.

I guess they're just giving people information, which isn't that harmful, I reckon.

No more harmful than a doctor providing the information.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The entirety of the internet is available to individuals to look up potential drugs - pharmaceutical advertising is BILLIONS of dollars annually.

Who pays for that? American consumers.

If we want to move away from a profit driven healthcare system - this is a step in that direction.

People need education and information and affordable healthcare - they don’t need flashy expensive advertising.

Healthcare is a business. All business is profit driven. Why we dont' want government running it? Because they don't run anything very well, waste money, favor their donors, and pay far too much for everything. The only true business the government runs is the USPS and it's always in debt and mismanaged.

 

[Allan]

The entirety of the internet is available to individuals to look up potential drugs

Not possible for the average layman. There are 38 million studies on PubMed and 24,000 Orange Book listings.

If we want to move away from a profit driven healthcare system - this is a step in that direction.

You are never moving away from for profit healthcare.

 

[multivita-man]

They are annoying but so are most commercials. Reverse mortgages, gambling, useless supplements, flimsy exercise equipment...all drive me nuts.



No more harmful than a doctor providing the information.

Will disagree on this one. The doctor is the person who is actually looking at test results and physically evaluating the patient in person. The doctor has the patient's medical history and information about the patient's general wellbeing and any medications and supplementation they're taking. A doctor is providing information based on his expertise and what he knows about the patient's situation. Generally speaking, in this sort of provider-consumer relationship, you want the provider to the one driving the consumptive behavior, not the other way around.