Prescription Drug Advertisements in America (and why they're bad

1900-1930

• Before 1912 - narcotics were not regulated so opioids, morphine, and cocaine were able to be purchased over the counter.
• 1912 - A bunch of countries were very worried and had the first opioid conference in China
• 1914 - The US passes the Harrison Act to control narcotics using taxes and created the FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) in 1930.

1930-1962

• 1938 - the FDCA act was passed which required all drugs to be proven safe before marketing by the distributor.
• 1951 - The Durham-Humphrey Act required potentially harmful drugs to only be distributed with a prescription.
• 1962 - the Kefauver-Harris Amendments gave the FDA the power to control drug distribution and marketing

1969 - Today

1962-Today

• 1969 - The FDA required drug adverts to have a list of all side effects and information.
• 1983 - The FDA had a temporary ban on DTC advertising and in 1985 it was lifted.
• 1992 - The AMA (American Medical Association) dropped all opposition to DTC advertising
• 1999 - FDA released Guidance for Industry: Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements

Misinformation

Misinformation

While not outright lying (that would be against FDA guidelines) many modern day prescription drug advertisements often try to shift the truth in their favor.

• Happy visuals/tone
• Missing side effects due to the fact video doesn't have as much time as newspaper
• "new and revolutionary"

Doctor/Patient Relationship

Doctors

DTC advertisements indirectly cause a strain in the relationship between doctors and patients. Often times a lot of people are quick to self-diagnose conditions even if they don't have them. 80% of Physicians say they felt pressured to give a patient a drug when asked.

Stigmatizing Normal Conditions

Wrinkles and low testosterone are normal conditions that people have and don't have any major side effects, however DTC advertisements paint these problems as not normal and aim to stigmatize them for profit.

Stigmatize

Cost

DTC advertisements have raised the costs of prescription drugs significantly. In Canada, these drugs are often less than half the price of American ones. Pharmaceutical companies in America spend 2/3 of their profits on advertising to consumers. Most every other country in the world puts its profits back into R&D (research and development)

More Options

More options is not always better as proven with the Vioxx scandal.

Vioxx was not superior to competitors however it was marketed heavily which introduced many consumers to Vioxx. Newer drugs are often not as tested as older ones and are often times not as good or the same quality.

Education

As some would argue, DTC educates the general public about disorders and drugs. However, This education is limited to the drug itself and the symptoms of the disorder. It rarely offers alternatives to help with the disorder such as diet or more/less activity. Also the education is limited by time: a 1 minute ad is not enough time to list all possible side effects and information regarding the disorder.

Treatment

A common argument for DTC advertisements is that more people with disorders get treated. This true, however, more people without the specific disorder also get treated. Advertisements increase treatment across the board whether having the disorder or not.

Adherence

There is a small increase in the adherence to drugs of people exposed to advertising. Many people quit taking a drug after a few days or weeks due to a perceived lack of effectiveness. Advertisements convince people to stick through these early parts.