SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-will-we-find-the-newest-ED-drugs dept.
AP reports that the American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs and implantable medical devices, saying they contribute to rising costs and patients' demands for inappropriate treatment. According to data cited in an AMA news release, ad dollars spent by drugmakers have risen to $4.5 billion in the last two years, a 30 percent increase. Physicians cited concerns that a growing proliferation of ads is driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives. "Today's vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices," said AMA Board Chair-elect Patrice A. Harris, M.D., M.A. "Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."
The AMA also calls for convening a physician task force and launching an advocacy campaign to promote prescription drug affordability by demanding choice and competition in the pharmaceutical industry, and greater transparency in prescription drug prices and costs. Last month, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report saying that a high cost of prescription drugs remains the public's top health care priority. In the past few years, prices on generic and brand-name prescription drugs have steadily risen and experienced a 4.7 percent spike in 2015, according to the Altarum Institute Center for Sustainable Health Spending.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:15PM
Big Pharma advertises because it works. People respond to the ads.
Oh, it's driving up health costs because people keep demanding the advertised products whether they're necessary or not? That means it's working.
So, let's start with an industry with incredibly deep pockets being able to lobby against the FDA and/or getting their cronies in congress to demand action and/or pre-empt the FDA with legislation. That's a tough battle to win.
Then you get the self serving arguments of "we're allowing consumers to take control of their health care by letting them know what their options are!" and scare tactics like "Your HMO will punish your doctor for so much as mentioning a treatment option if it's not in their interest! We're saving lives!" (because Ci*lis and Viag*ra apparently save lives).
When we get fancy, we'll invoke Citizens United and the constitutional right of a corporation to Free Speech!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:54AM
Commercial speech [cornell.edu] does have some protection under the First Amendment. Unlike Citizens United there's nothing "fancy" about the notion that advertising is speech.