There is something for every illness. Photo of shelves equipped with various medicinal products in a pharmacy.
aging
Last month Trump’s administration announced sweeping changes to decades old rules that allow medicinal manufacturers to advertise products directly to the consumer. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary noted that since 1997, when the rules have changed allowing drug promotion, as advertisements describe side effects with clinical benefits, manufacturers have spent billions to promote their drugs. The amount of money spent on advertising over the next decade increased 8 times, from $ 700 million to $ 5.4 billion in 2006. This number today is around 10 billion $ And according to some estimates, it accounts for about 31% of what the US pharmaceutical industry is spending to bring drugs to the market.
The administration has also proposed that companies have spent about 14% more advertising drugs with moderate benefit as opposed to those with a higher clinical benefit. The FDA’s position against these trends is that advertising today is generally designed to mislead, not to reliably inform consumers of the available options. In this respect, practice is considered misleading, enhancing the supposed benefits, while minimizing the actual risk. Consequently, the FDA has set new instructions that requires greater risk focus and announced that it will be more aggressive on its supervision. It has already issued thousands of letters of warning companies to remain complied with existing regulations. About 100 pause and decoration letters They have also been issued by targeting the most serious regulatory violations.
Perhaps the biggest concern for the FDA is the belief that such an advertisement has deformed the relationship between patients and their doctors, encouraging patients to seek active treatments that may not be optimal for them. The Agency is also concerned that ads divert funds away from the new development of medicines that could offer benefits and lower drug prices.
It is not surprising that the Pharmaceutical Pressure Team, PhRMA and various advertising associations have pushed back, taking the place that such advertising has helped consumers to realize various treatment options and increase their active participation in their care. While the FDA cannot prohibit pharmaceutical advertising, as it violates freedom of speech, it can regulate misleading practice.
Pharmaceuticals are obviously not like traditional consumer products, but consumers need to deal with their health and solutions that may be required to maintain or improve them, usually in consultation with a discussion with their doctor. But involvement with doctors has been negatively affected by the restrictions on the time available and the reality of highly uncoordinated care in multiple specialties.
The traditional health care general of health care, the primary care doctor, is usually the one whose time is less valued by the medical institution if a value index is compensation. A vast majority of these doctors are used, either by healthcare systems intended to find optimal solutions for patients associated with them or by the insurance companies that pay for the services provided by the systems. Insurance companies, as I have written in this column before, have created complex bureaucratic rules and regulations aimed at limiting the financial report for the insurer, very often at the expense of the patient.
But even on the delivery of the health care of the equation, the motives are not always aligned with the interests of patients. Even here’s financial incentives deform decision making. The most strong thing is the fact that PCPs often do not simply have the time to spend alternatives, especially for complex specialty conditions. Thus, the patient refers to a specialist after another, increasing fragmentation, frustration and total cost.
Where does the pharmaceutical advertisement fit into this mixture? The industry (and others) would argue that it is a legal vehicle to inform the patient consumer about new choices that may be appropriate for them. Ads usually encourage patients to talk to their doctor to see if “X” can be suitable for them. Updated patients are a good thing – for the patients themselves and for society wider. But must be adequately informed and the healthcare expert must be committed to talking through the answers to the question: “Is this a medicine suitable for you?” And here’s the problem.
In a world where the expert is under significant time pressure to see as many patients as possible, regardless of the clinical outcome for the patient table, these are difficult conversations.
Many doctors do not have the time to participate in the discussion. Some, even if they have time, are not comfortable in a spiritual conversation about the advantages/disadvantages. Patients often shop for doctors and seek the most willing to prescribe what they want against what they need. (The opioid crisis was partially powered by this dynamic.) To the extent that doctors are evaluated for patient satisfaction and not for clinical results, behavior is oriented to get a good degree of satisfaction. In this case, giving the patient what is requested can be a course to this degree.
All care is not equal. But when motivations assume that they are and is considered very difficult to measure the important results, the scene is going to enhance the wrong faith. Just as all care is not equal, not all medicines are the same, although many can be approved for the same condition.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers bring innovations to the market. How a drug in a class performs against other options (eg to maintain blood pressure or lowering cholesterol) is based on scientific elements and real experience. There is no advertising, no matter how many notifications are offered, they can convey what is right for a particular patient.
Drug innovation allows for more accurate treatment decisions for patients. Only informed doctors in consultation with up -to -date patients can make these decisions.
To the extent that DTC advertising helps to increase the awareness of new patients’ options, which are useful. But the ecosystem of healthcare today with its abused motives makes it difficult to apply this knowledge. The future can be ready for a special disease that is not the type of education and not the marketing based on the brand. This could mean less dependence on expensive television ads to lead to the awareness of products to increase pharmaceutical sales.
