Direct-to-consumer advertising

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC advertising) sometimes refers to the marketing of pharmaceutical products but applies in other areas as well. This form of advertising is directed toward patients, rather than healthcare professionals. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating DTC advertising in the United States. The FDA’s latest version of guidelines, though still in draft form, for pharmaceutical drug advertising was updated in 2009.[1] Forms of DTC advertising include TV, print, radio and other mass and social media. There are ethical and regulatory concerns regarding DTC advertising, specifically the extent to which these ads may unduly influence the prescribing of the prescription medicines based on consumer demands when, in some cases, they may not be medically necessary.

Nations permitting DTC

To date only two nations permit DTC (Nation, year of legalization)

Pharmaceutical industry controversy

All Western nations, with the exception of New Zealand and the United States, have historically (since the 1940s for Australasia, North America, and Europe) banned direct advertising of pharmaceuticals to consumers. [2]

In 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services began requiring all draft FDA regulatory letters, including letters related to advertising violations, to be reviewed and approved by the FDA's Office of Chief Counsel before they are issued.[3]

On 2 August 2005, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America released its Guiding Principles on Direct to Consumer Advertisements About Prescription Medicines, with the intent to stop congressional action to end industry self-regulation.[4]

This great amount of advertising has been successful in raising the prescription rate of DTC drugs by 34.2%, compared to only a 5.1% increase in other prescriptions.[5]

On the other side of the issue, pharmaceutical drug companies are using advertising for the wrong purpose. Overall, they are using the public to make money. Almost all of the drug ads are misleading, whether the information is wrong, the drug not researched enough, the condition not something that should be treated, or the wording is wrong. Not every advertisement includes all the information that the public needs to know. The relationships between doctors and their patients are weakening immensely because of the advertisements. The ads are affecting both the patient and the doctors state of mind and thoughts. Lastly, the medication advertisements are increasing the costs of health care. There is a reason why the United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow direct-to-consumer adverting they do more harm than they do good for the public. Direct-to-consumer is not good for the United States of America, and the government should control the advertisements better or just get rid of them completely.

These and many other aspects of DTC advertising made it very controversial among public health officials and physicians.[6]

Financial services

Consumer vulnerability to deceptive advertising is also particularly acute in the area of financial services. Individuals often have little knowledge of the workings of credit, leases, and security agreements. It is sometimes difficult to obtain information on such subjects that would be meaningful to the average consumer, so it is especially important that consumers be on guard against misleading or fraudulent advertisement. Because of the great inequality of bargaining power in this area, the government often backs up the consumer with protective laws.[7][8]

References

  1. ↑ http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm064956.htm
  2. ↑ Ventola, C. Lee. "Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: therapeutic or toxic?." Pharmacy and Therapeutics 36.10 (2011): 669.
  3. ↑ Donohue, J. M., Cevasco, M., & Rosenthal, M. B. (2007). A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(7), 673-681.
  4. ↑ Arnold, Matthew (2006-10-01). 40 years of DTC. MMM, 1 October 2006. Retrieved from http://www.mmm-online.com/40-years-of-DTC/article/35502/
  5. ↑ Sheehan, Kim. Controversies in Contemporary Advertising; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003; pp 209-215.
  6. ↑ Kerber, Ross. Doctors Criticize Sleeping-Pill Ad (Lunesta from Sepracor Inc.). Boston Globe, Boston, Aug. 18, 2005, p HS05.
  7. ↑ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 1981. What Truth in Lending Means to You
  8. ↑ Rist, Marilee C. 1989. Mass Marketers Have a Sweet Deal for You, but There Are Strings Attached. American School Board Journal (176)9, 20-24.

Further reading

External links