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 TheRaven on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:52PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:10PM
But when will they call for the banning of LUGs run by ArchLinux users? [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:24PM
placebos have become measurably more effective in the USA (but not Europe)
Very interesting. However, a Citation would be helpful.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:35PM
Lick my taint, dog fucker.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Hawkwind on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:11PM
https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl [startpage.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:39AM
OK, that's not a link to the paper, that's a link to you commenting on the story about the research when it was presented here.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bziman on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:53PM
Recently, I've been seeing ads on TV for Neulasta, which helped keep me alive a few years back, and at the time, ran somewhere in excess of $10,000 a dose. Amgen spends over $200 million a year on advertising. No one is going to go out and buy Neulasta for fun. And if you're getting chemotherapy, chances are, your doctor already knows about it. It's unethical to waste hundreds of millions of dollars a year on advertising and then charge people through the nose for life-saving medicine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:54PM
This is part of having a monopoly.
In a monopoly spending money (ANY money) can help your bottom line.
Wahhhhat? You might ask.
In a monopoly marginal cost dictates the real price. It will not be the optimum market price. But the max profit price for the monopoly. So literally if you make something more expensive to make you can increase your profits. Advertising is considered a fixed cost usually.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:16PM
Cool story, brah. But what is most important is how we can stop the atrocities committed by ArchLinux users so that mothers like this [examiner.com] no longer have to apologize for the antics of their sons.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Subsentient on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:24AM
Easy. We get a chainsaw, fire it up, hold you down, and slowly insert it into your rectum.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:16PM
USA and New Zealand... I haven't read the fine print of the TPPA but I wouldn't be surprised if direct to consumer advertising is enshrined in it.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:29PM
I'm not sure New Zealand does allow it. New Zealand's TV advertising is quite heavily regulated, and I can't remember the last time I saw a drug ad on TV. (Don't take that to mean you're wrong, maybe they advertise during the day when I'm at work).
Source: I live in NZ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:38AM
Wrong, these ads are all over Canadian TV too.
(Score: 4, Funny) by chromas on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:20PM
I find this very concerning. Look, when I get a rash and go visit a doctor with years of biology, chemistry and other medical training, he expects me to ask him about some stuff I saw on tv.
(Score: 1) by SDRefugee on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:27PM
I really *doubt* the doctor is *expecting* you to ask him about shit you see on tv.. I sure the hell wouldn't... Its the mindless marketing drones from "Big Pharma" doing that.. The ONLY thing I even trust for any medical info besides my doctor is WebMD...
America should be proud of Edward Snowden, the hero, whether they know it or not..
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:39PM
http://www.mayoclinic.org/ [mayoclinic.org] Mayo Clinic is a good repository of information as well. In fact I would rank Mayo Clinic much higher than WebMD.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:27PM
Read the by-lines on Mayo and webmd, and you often find they are the same bunch of doctors.
And when they are, some of the articles are almost word for word the same.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:09AM
OMG! frojack has lifted the veil! All our doctors are actually Robots! It's just like in the end of the Star Wars before the suck, when Luke got his hand fixed by that droid doctor. Of course that was well before Luke was delivered by a droid doctor, and well before, or actually about the same time as his Father was patched together by, yet again!!! droid doctors, and put into a suit so he could have a very deep and breathy voice, which was important for the future of the force ----franchise, I meant.
Medical doctors are not doctors. We have known this since Aristotle. He came over from the dark side, but retained many of its qualities. The Latin root of "docta" is "teach". Medical people have not always been called doctors, since they often did not teach at all, and had very little learning to draw on, in any case. They were called "physcians", or "barbers". Blood-letters, hacks, quacks, and Ben Carson. That last bit was uncalled for, but couldn't help it. Plato famously said that when a physcian is more interested in collecting fees than practicing medicine, we should refer to them as a "fee-collector" rather than a doctor. And of course, pharmacy has never been a reputable profession: "pharma" is Greek for poison. Now we know. Do not let these bastards advertise. And get the god-damned lawyers off the TV and internets. Not to mention "Cancer Clinics"! Do you have some retirement money left and want a second opinion before your inevitable and painful demise? Oh, those guy are the worst. They are like the Daesh of Medicine! To all these drug dealers, I hope you die of the disease you are pandering to to make your living, because that would be justice. Ironic justice, but justice none the less. And at least we would not have to listen to you or wonder about what we actually should ask our doctor about. Assuming he is a real doctor, and not a pharma shill, or jmorris.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:41PM
I really *doubt* the doctor is *expecting* you to ask him about shit you see on tv.
Why wouldn't he? Everybody does it these days, so the doctors have learned to expect it.
They've also learned to deal with it, and dig in their heels or give in, depending on their training or the patient's degree of persistence. Given two drugs of reasonably close performance, doctors will often prescribe according to patient's wishes.
You also have to consider that some doctors do make money prescribing certain drugs [consumerreports.org]. The good doctors won't let this cloud their judgement. But you know some will. (You can look up your doctor on that page).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:50PM
Correction:
You can look up doctors from Links on that page:
http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/ [propublica.org] (This even finds meals paid for by medical vendors, or symposiums attended for free paid for by drug companies).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 22 2015, @06:26AM
Expecting is exactly the right word. They are expecting it with a sense of dread that they will (for the 10,000th time) have to explain that "drug of the week" is for anal warts and cannot be expected to help with your cough.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:51PM
Its your broker who's really expecting it.
Some complaining about periodic discussion of this topic is there are some weird corporate ads on CNBC (a dying cable network for financial news) for the strangest non-consumer companies and immediately the whining breaks out about how will judges tell the difference between a "buy our stock" ad and a "pester your doctor" ad.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Marand on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:42PM
I find this very concerning. Look, when I get a rash and go visit a doctor with years of biology, chemistry and other medical training, he expects me to ask him about some stuff I saw on tv.
It's not just a pharma thing; I broke a bone in my foot many years ago and when I went to the appropriately trained "expert" I was directed to -- it was a work injury so I ended up with little choice about it -- he walked in with the x-rays and started the conversation with, basically, "Your foot's broken, do you want a splint or a cast?" and stood there waiting for me to choose.
No suggestions, no information about pros and cons of each, nothing. I tried asking what he, as the person in the room with the training to make that sort of decision, thought should be done and he wouldn't say. I couldn't even get a list of pros/cons for the options. Everything was just met with some form of "I can't tell you that, pick something and gtfo" and annoyance that I was wasting his time asking questions.
This was before smartphones were a thing, so I was stuck in the room with no information, no way to get any information, and being told to make a choice that would affect the healing. I was pissed; this kind of thing isn't like a haircut or choosing lunch where if you don't like the decision it's only a temporary problem. I still have problems with that foot sometimes, likely because I basically had to decide by coin-toss how it should be fixed.
I've heard stories where people go to a dentist and get the same treatment, too. If we're expected to self-diagnose and pick the solutions ourselves, why do we even need the people that spend years in school learning about this shit?
---
Sadly, that wasn't even close to the only problem I had with that broken foot. The first person I got sent to, I had to sit in a waiting room forever just to be told that he didn't work with that sort of thing, but he could direct me to someone else that could. Of course, I'd been waiting so long that the other doctor was unavailable until the next day, so I got sent home (third story apartment with no elevator, so that was fun) with nothing at all to help keep the foot from moving or being moved or anything. The next day I went back to the hospital, where it took three separate nurses about twenty minutes to figure out how to take my pulse, and then got the useless doctor of no-information.
I'm not a litigious sort, but I regret not suing every fucking person I could over the whole thing. I was young and didn't know better, though.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:16PM
Everything was just met with some form of "I can't tell you that, pick something and gtfo"
You can thank lawsuit happy medical predators and their lawyers and the warped jackpot justice system for that. If he tells you one over the other and anything at all goes wrong, you could sue and probably win. Excessive law suits have ruined medicine in the US.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:39AM
You can thank lawsuit happy medical predators and their lawyers and the warped jackpot justice system for that
That's kind of what I figured, but it's still bullshit that you go to someone trained to handle a certain problem and they leave you to figure it out yourself. The doctor in my case wasn't involved in any part of the process except the part where he walked in, demanded I make a decision without providing any useful information, and then left. What, exactly, was he being paid for there?
Also, not directed to you specifically, but WTF at the troll mod for my comment. Offtopic I could maybe understand since it was on topic to the parent but not so much to TFS, but in what way was that a troll post?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:45PM
There are plenty of people who think "troll" means "anyone who posts something I disagree with". Just ignore them, they rarely have anything useful to contribute. In fact, apart from calling people "troll" they don't do anything at all. They're just part of the background noise on the internet.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:50PM
"For Sheldon Cooper, sex is no longer going to be just a theory. At Tuesday’s taping of the Dec. 17 episode of CBS' The Big Bang Theory, brilliant, awkward scientists Sheldon (Jim Parsons) and Amy Farrah Fowler (Mayim Bialik) lose their virginity together. After the taping in front of a studio audience, which was attended by USA TODAY, executive producer Steve Molaro issued a short statement.
“After over five years of dating, we felt the time was right for Sheldon and Amy to finally consummate their relationship, and we're so excited for the audience to see the journey over the next several episodes,” says Molaro, who oversees day-to-day operations of the top-rated, ninth-season comedy (Thursday, 8 p.m.), which was created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/11/18/cbs-big-bang-theory-episode-taping/75942542/ [usatoday.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:08PM
I will be creating general intelligence using Java on multicore.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:49PM
I'm a registered, logged in user who's never spammed the site or posted any commercial advertisement.
I had a contribution to offer on this topic which wasn't at all similar to another post.
"Lameness Filter Encountered: No Spam Please."
You can fuck right off, Lameness Filter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:57PM
Name enough brand dname drugs and you can encounter that.
You also could be putting the soylentNews site at risk from the lawyers hired to protect brand names. These companies have more more money than god.
You can usually find a way to get around this if your are clever.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:22PM
You also could be putting the soylentNews site at risk from the lawyers hired to protect brand names.
You're allowed to have any opinion you want about any brand name you want. Trademark does not mean you're not allowed to even think the word without permission. You just can't use it to trade under. But if I want to say that I think McDonald's hamburgers are disgusting none of their lawyers can do anything about it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:06AM
The v1agara problem is well known
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:03PM
It's like there are 20 brands of aspirin in the store. 19 of them cost $8.99 for 20 "sachets", "hydrogels" or "capulettes" enhanced with vitamin C and in a "fun" color. 1 of them is $1.99 for 100 plain white pills. It is on the bottom shelf in the corner and hard to find.
No-one is getting rich off the $1.99 aspirin and no-one has any overheads advertising it, lobbying for it or incentivizing stores to feature it prominently. If they would only increase the price to $2.99 then maybe the plain old pills might get some marketing love :~(
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mmcmonster on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:37PM
...But they have absolutely no power and little influence in Washington D.C.
The fact of the matter is, physicians should have one of the strongest lobbies in the country. But the AMA has caused enough bad will amongst physicians that a lot of us just never become members.* We're members of other professional societies. Enough of them that our power is diluted in D.C.
The AMA and all the other medical professional societies should have asked for a ban on direct advertising of prescription drugs and treatments more than a decade ago. The only reason they're doing it now is that they have to show their members that they're doing something.
Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications is horrible. It confuses the matter of whether the physician is giving the latest (perceived to be best) medication available, and tends to drive up the cost of medications.
As a physician, I would suggest:
1 - Continue all restrictions on what pharmaceutical companies can give to physicians. It's essentially down to paid food either at work or at a dinner 'lecture' without (non-physician) spouses. Ban pharmaceutical companies from including travel expenses for physicians to meetings.
1a - Cap pharmaceutical companies paid lecturers. Both how much they can pay a particular lecturer and how much a particular physician can get from all pharmaceutical companies.
2 - Ban pharmaceutical advertising outside of trade magazines and conferences
3 - Create mandatory copays (regardless of insurance coverage) on all non-generic medications. Force patients to have some 'skin in the game'.
4 - Forbid giving sample pills to anyone who has insurance. If you have insurance, either you pay for part/all of a prescription or you don't get it. Samples are only for compassionate care to those who cannot afford insurance.
5 - Forbid giving sample pills to physician offices (hospitals are still allowed to get (and should get expanded) sample medications). The pills should be direct-to-patient except when the patient is homeless or being discharged from a hospital.
Disclaimer: I am a physician but not a member of the AMA. I am a member of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).
* Reference: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/07/313211/77-percent-of-doctors-say-ama-does-not-represent-their-views/ [thinkprogress.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:14AM
Why should there be any advertising? A pharmaceutical is a purely utilitarian product, like salt or bottled ammonia: The "advertising" should be a bland, dry list of diseases, conditions, and/or symptoms that this drug may treat, along with a list of side-effects, and perhaps some other data fields.
[?xml?]
[drug]
[name]foobaristim[/name]
[disease]whateveritis[/disease]
[disease]somethingelseosis[/disease]
[side-effect]irritation[/side-effect]
[side-effect]swelling[/side-effect]
[side-effect]defenestration[/side-effect]
[notes]...[/notes]
[/drug]
This then gets published into some centralized database physicians look diseases up in. There ya go.
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:15AM
The side effects could use a "chance of experiencing" percentage derived from the test results. I always wonder about that in the advertisements.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:15AM
What's gonna be on TV without the pill commercials?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
(Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:49AM
Well, I, for one, am severely interested in the latest technological advances in tortilla chip flavors.
(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!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:24PM
For a while I thought AMA refers to "American Marketing Association." Not that far off, it seems.