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: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:43AM
1 - Free Speech. Why should a company not have that right too, if they are pushing legal products?
2 - Free Market. Telling consumers you exist is an important part.
3 - Who gives the government the right to restrict my knowledge?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:51PM
1 - Free Speech. Why should a company not have that right too, if they are pushing legal products?
2 - Free Market. Telling consumers you exist is an important part.
3 - Who gives the government the right to restrict my knowledge?
1-Because companies shouldn't have rights, only obligations. It's not like they are people.
2-Only an important part if your product is paid for by consumers' discretionary spending. People with an illness are highly motivated to learn of your existence if you can treat their illness.
3-If you think you're getting any useful knowledge from TV ads, I have a pill that can help you with that.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 22 2015, @08:25AM
Corporations are not people. They are legal constructs without even an intrinsic right to exist. In theory (though rarely practiced) they may exist only as long as their existence is in the public interest.
But if you insist on free speech, prepare for cartoons to feature ads like "Join the Kool Kids Club, smoking makes you get picked first!" and "Budweiser, sneak some from the fridge today!"