This page was created by Chase Richard Carlile.
Visualizing Pharmaceuticals: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
Direct-to-Consumer advertising was first introduced in the 1960s. Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising (DTCPA) laws and regulations in the United States have gradually become more relaxed since they were first introduced in the 1960s. Consequently, expenditures on advertisements for prescription drugs in the United States have grown to approximately $4.5 billion per year. In 1962 Congress gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate prescription drug labeling and advertising, but the FDA did not establish implementing regulations until 1969. Pharmaceutical companies shifted the focus of their marketing efforts to licensed medical doctors in the 1970s, as the FDA mandated that only doctors could prescribe medicine. After a series of Patient Rights campaigns in the 1970s persuaded a large segment of the population to be actively involved in their own medical care, the drug company Pfizer launched the first pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer campaign in 1980, promoting its brand but not marketing any prescription medication. In 1981, Boots aired the first targeted drug advertisement for the drug Rufen, promoting the pain killer as a cheaper alternative to leading brands. Soon after Merck launched a campaign promoting its pneumonia vaccine.
Some pros of direct-to-consumer advertising is the economic impact it makes. Supporters of DTCPA argue that advertisements increase competition which leads to lower prescription drug prices and new development, citing, for instance, that between 1997 to 2001, spending on research and development in the US increased 59% while spending on promoting drugs directly to patients increased 145%. However, other experts have asserted that funding for R&D is determined by several other factors. Another pro involves public health with arguments in favor of DTCPA assert that advertising informs consumers of new treatment options, generating new doctor visits and thereby reducing the rate of undiagnosed illnesses.
Some cons of direct-to-consumer advertising also includes the economic impact it makes. Some studies have asserted that DTCPA misleads patients into demanding heavily-advertised drugs, leading to superfluous or sub-optimal treatment. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have determined that 47% of all antibiotics prescribed in the United States are unnecessary, imposing significant additional costs on affected households. Another con is the effect on doctor – patient relationships. When consumers approach their doctor with a health concern, or to request a change in medication for a condition they already have, often their first and most persuasive source of information was a pharmaceutical advertisement. This leads consumers to direct their doctors’ visits from the start by prompting a conversation about a certain drug or course of treatment. Doctors may be more likely to prescribe the medicine patients requested even when it may not be the most cost-effective, medically sound, or safe course of treatment. Another con is the safety of the drugs. DTCA can lead to patients using newer drugs. Drug advertisements predominately advertise new drugs. Advertisements generally begin within a year of drugs entering the market. Newer drugs have had less time to be studied. This can result in drugs being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. From 1997 to 2001, 10 drugs were removed from the U.S. market. The final con is medicalization. Pharmaceutical companies' desire to make a profit can lead to marketing more drugs to more people. The bounds for what is considered ill may broaden. Advertisements display “unfortunate facts of life” like wrinkling or baldness as a disease to be treated with drugs.
