Pharmaceutical Industry & TV Ads

[TN_Vixen]

You've all seen them.. SNL even has a parody of sorts on these drug commercials. Anything from Viagra to Insomnia is advertised on television... the drug companies directly pandering their product to the public & even encouraging us to ask our physician to administer these drugs to us.

Does anyone else see the implications these commercials are having on our society?

If not, here's something for you to consider.

Prescription drugs are the primary reason why private insurance is so expensive. One notable insurance carrier recently circulated news that they had paid out more in prescription drug cost last year than they had in in-patient medical procedures. That's incredible! But why now? Why in the year 2000-2001 has prescription drug costs elevated so drastically?

I would point to increased advertising on television as one reason. Prior to the drug companies being allowed to advertise their product on television, our physician was the only person consistantly aware of progress in the realm of medication. He/She would meet with the pharm. rep and read publications based upon specific medications and make an informed decision as to whether or not a drug was needed for a patient. Now, however, with the prolific advertisement of medication.. most of which is considered "experimental" by insurance companies.. patients demand to be allowed to test these drugs.

I'm concerned that we've allowed the pharm. companies to pander to us in order for their profit. Isn't this an issue we should all be concerned about?

 

[WriterDom]

For every 5,000 compounds discovered, only one makes it to the market. And only 3 out of 10 drugs generate revenues that meet or exceed average research and development costs, according to a study by Duke University economists. The economists found that the 20 percent of the products with the highest returns generated 70 percent of the returns. In other words, companies must rely on a limited number of highly successful products to finance continuing R&D for new treatments.

So they push Viagra on TV. What else isn't pushed on TV?
It's called the free enterprise system. If it leads to more research in other areas, I'd say it's a good thing.

 

[TN_Vixen]

WriterDom

This is a fairly new phenomenon... promoting prescription medication on television. Free enterprise isn't something that I'm against at all. Pharm. companies aren't using the revenue generated to compound new drugs. That isn't their arena. It is the scientists who research and experiment and develop the medication which is funded either privately or governmentally. Once developed the drug is then sold to a pharm company who spends $$$ to package and promote the drug.

The result of directly advertising medication has a significant impact on the health care industry. Because of the awareness prompted by these commercials, more people demand to try medication they normally wouldn't. Insurance companies that provide Rx cards ($10 generic/ $20 brand name) are eating these huge costs as a direct result of this type of advertising. What does that mean for you, me, and your employee benefit package at work? It means a huge increase in premiums b/c the insurance companies are no longer retaining profit.

I'm not bashing the pharm. companies or free enterprise, I'm simply stating bold facts that impact the private healthcare industry and wondering if this type of advertising is helping or hurting our society in general.

 

[R Nitelight]

TN_Vixen

Have you been talking to Todd again?

 

[TN_Vixen]

Nitelight

um no. I've actually been reading and educating myself on an issue that should hold importance to many more people than just myself and WriterDom, but am I overreaching to think that the people here want to use their brain?

 

[R Nitelight]

TN_Vixen

Probably.

 

[TN_Vixen]

that's what I thought

*grin*

 

[WriterDom]

you should change the subject line to Pharmaceutical Industry & TV Ads and naked pics of tn vixon , ...

 

[TN_Vixen]

LOL.. well now

I don't have that much of an ego to presume that would garner response, but hey.. you could be on to something! (grin)

Hey WD? Have I told you lately that I like your stories? No? Well, I do. *smile*

 

[WriterDom]

well thank you and it's no secret that you are one of the loveliest ladies at Lit

 

[TN_Vixen]

that was unexpected, but

appreciated Thank you.

btw.. could you give me the same kind of advice you gave MP on her recent story submission? I was very enthralled.

 

[DriveSouth]

you should change the subject line to Pharmaceutical Industry & TV Ads and naked pics of tn vixon , ...

Now you're talking -

That would sure livin' this thread up.

 

[WriterDom]

Re: that was unexpected, but

appreciated Thank you.

btw.. could you give me the same kind of advice you gave MP on her recent story submission? I was very enthralled.

of course! are you writing a story, or looking for a more practical demonstration?

 

[TN_Vixen]

well, I was going to write

a story, but seeing as how I have virtually no experience in your area of expertise, maybe application is in order for me to be believable?

damn, the flirting virus has hit me and even on one of my serious thread postings!

 

[WriterDom]

Re: well, I was going to write

MP gave me more credit than I deserved, but if I can help you in any way, feel free to drop me a line.

 

[TN_Vixen]

an appeal to BrainyBeauty

despite the degeneration to flagrant flirting in this post, I honestly feel that your comments are valuable and informative. Would you mind if I posted them?

 

[genderbender]

I was waiting for someone to observe how a serious comment from an attractive woman so quickly got lost in a sea of flirtation and innuendo. Now, I don't want to stir anything up, but isn't this what intelligent women have been complaining about forever? No one wants to take them seriously.

I may be accused of being a bit too serious, but I will say that you're asking a legitimate question TN. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry is spending incredible amounts of money not only to push its products but to stop companies who market less expensive generic versions of the same products from getting a foothold. They'll do silly things like offer a time released version of the medicine, not because it improves it efficacy, but because it permits them to extend their patent. Yes, its the beauty of the free enterprise system, but, as always, its the consumer that gets ripped off along the way. And the example you're using of television advertising is a perfect. People watch the ad, diagnose themselves and then pressure the doctor to prescribe the medicine, whether its justified or not, simply to get the patient off their back. Yes, we all pay for this with higher insurance premiums. We're no healthier, just poorer.

 

[BrainyBeauty]

We interrupt this flirting to bring you a special bulletin -an answer to the appeal!

TnVix, I feel silly posting this now after all the flirting but since you asked so sweetly... I have also added some new info to address your questions/comments but will make that a second post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just a little background and a correction...

The cost of developing drugs is staggeringly high. It takes, on average, approximately 12 years for the average drug to go from concept to market.

Your statement/theory that there are independent scientists just standing around inventing medicine and selling it to drug companies is wrong. Both PMAs - primary manufacturers and generic firms staff R&D departments. They do not 'buy' formulas from anyone! They do sometimes enter into agreements to market and distribute a drug from another company - but certainly not an individual!

The entire process is time consuming and expensive to begin with. The R&D phase alone takes decades sometimes. Then there are the interferences from the government. The regulatory process is the single most important factor in the whole mix. Reams of documents must be read and interpreted. Visits to the manufacturing site.

Clinical trials have 4 phases which must be adhered to, completed, documented, submitted and reviewed before final regulatory approval is given for either a new or abbreviated drug application.

You are correct that in the past, pharmaceutical companies relied on sales reps to present samples and a sales pitch to doctors to recommend their product over any other. They still do that today. It is a cutthroat business to ensure that a brand name gets prescribed more than a generic.

When the rules were lifted to allow advertising direct to the public, certain other rules were constructed. You'll notice disclaimers in place. They cannot legally describe what their product can do for you. Hence the directive to "Call your doctor" or "Ask your doctor if XXX is right for you!" These slick ads do not come cheap and of course the price is passed along to you. However, it is not impacting the private insurance industry anymore so than any other method, as you have suggested.

In the past, only if a patient inquired about a generic alternative would a doctor or pharmacist go against the top name. Drugs are a huge industry now. And will only grow as our population ages.

Premarin is and has been the top drug for the last 3 decades. The most widely prescribed drug in the world. For women going through menopause. It is a billion dollar drug by itself. You wouldn't believe the kind of pressure Wyeth Ayerst has brought to bear on the doctors, pharmacists, insurers, and government to prevent and stifle competition.

Viagra is fast approaching the billion dollar number and when its first year sales are totaled next month it might even surpass Premarin! Point is, that just because they advertise on tv and in magazines, doesn't mean that this is the reason for increased costs.

Manufacturers also begin spending money on protecting their franchises several years before the patents expire. I mean - they institute the full court press sometimes up to a decade before their monopoly ends. (The government grants them the authority to market their product for a certain number of years with no competition!) This is the only industry where the government actually approves and encourages a monopoly! For a certain amount of time. Once the patent expires, however, all bets are off. Competitors come out of the woodwork immediately it seems, although they have had their version just sitting around for years waiting to be allowed to sell.

All the aforementioned factors play a part. R&D costs; testing; regulatory affairs; marketing all contribute. You can't single handedly blame the manufacturers- although they are greedy bastards, no doubt about it!

But so are your insurance companies. They sure aren't in business for the fun of it. They are in business to make money - just like every other business. They are to blame for a lot of the problems today too- making medical decisions with a business background is simply foolhardy if not downright dangerous. That we don't rise up against this trend is more disturbing to me than monetary considerations. I don't want a bean counter telling me what procedure to have or what drug to take because it costs him or his company less.

I also blame the consumers. They don't ask enough questions. About medications. About treatments. About alternatives. They complain about the cost yet allow others to make life-altering decisions for them. Based on financial aspects. That is wrong.

So while I can see your point about the advertising, I just wanted to say that it isn't the sole reason for increased costs. It is a part of the problem but not the only factor.

 

[BrainyBeauty]

The mouth that won't quit!

I am not trying to be argumentative. We are on the same side for the most part- especially in our belief that prices are outrageous and inappropriate. However, I propose that insurance companies are not absorbing the costs of drugs. I know you are not so naive as to believe that they don't also pass on the costs to their customers.

As I said, there are several factors which contribute to the rise in prescription drug costs. It is very expensive to conduct the R&D portion- average of hundreds of millions of dollars per product. Regulatory issues add to that especially when the review process is protracted.

Then there is the issue of increased costs in raw materials. The difficulty in obtaining some types of raw materials can be quite costly - and ones that are so rare and found in remote regions of the world contribute to a "what the market will bear" philosophy.

Let's not forget lawsuits- no matter who wins. Ongoing legal costs-which are de rigueur now- detract significantly from a company's bottom line and are, therefore, tacked on to the total. All of these things contribute to higher prices.

So in relation to the big picture, the fact that companies can advertise directly to the consumer really has little bearing on the cost of their product at all. Let's not forget that just because a person asks their doctor for a specific med, it doesn't mean he/she will prescribe it. A patient's history affects the decision more often than not. Allergies, gender and age are other components that aid in a physician's choice of treatment.

But you are correct that the pharmaceutical companies pricing systems are totally out of whack. This generates a new kind of problem that arises now where people are forced to choose between medication and food or utilities. I am not advocating a nationalized system or any further governmental interference by any means. Price supports do not work. Crossing our fingers and hoping that the manufacturers will develop a conscience and lower prices on their own is unrealistic. (Although- Merck finally did lower prices on AIDS related drugs to 3rd world countries just last week believe it or not)

But we also need to realize that insurance companies were not created to pay for everything! They were formed to assist patients in case of medical catastrophes. They were to be a supplement to offset outrageous costs of medical procedures. People today assume (and worse yet- expect) that insurance will pay for everything- from prevention to grave. It doesn't work that way. Nor should we expect it to.

But, as usual, give people an inch and they will take a mile. I no more expect Blue Cross/Blue Shield to subsidize my sex life by paying for birth control pills than I would for them to pay for Viagra. Yes, I know they do and this is a hot button right issue now. They shouldn't be paying for either. People go to the doctor for an annual physical- which is great. I believe in preventive maintenance! LOL But the insurance company should not be paying for this. In fact, in the past, they didn't pay for 'routine' care. It was an automatic rejection.

Damn, there is no free lunch. The more people demand these things, the higher and faster the premiums will rise. People need to stop expecting someone else to pay their way. This is another area where personal responsibility comes into play. Only in instances where you are involved in an accident or have a catastrophic illness should insurance be expected to kick in.

In the same vein, you mentioned that companies can no longer provide a decent benefits package for their employees without expecting them to contribute. Well, unless you were very lucky, most companies stopped doing that a long time ago. I remember the good old days when my employer paid for the entire insurance package. But that has been years. It is too prohibitive a cost to them. They do that and then they have to raise prices on their goods or services! It's a vicious cycle.

Let the buyer beware. Consumers should research their options for medical care and treatment. If seeing an ad on tv makes them want a certain drug, they can get info and ask their doctor. They really just need to make informed decisions and stop relying on slick promotions from advertising, double talk from their employers, being ignored at a doctor's office or denied coverage from insurance companies. Stand up, take responsibility and then pay for it themselves. Then maybe prices will come down.

 

[WriterDom]

Can't we get back to flagrant flirting?

 

[Madame Pandora]

As usual, when BrainyBeauty posts, she says all there is to say and I am left muttering "What she said." But, I’ll still ramble a bit just to save face.

Having worked for two major Rx companies, I can tell you there is MORE THAN ENOUGH to hate them for. This issue of insurance costs due to the needless hawking of meds isn’t really valid.

I don't know if you watch The West Wing, but last season there was a wonderful episode about a very real issue which is rarely discussed because most Americans don’t know about it. (Sorkin is very good about raising these types of issues from both sides of the argument, which is one of the main reasons I enjoy the show so much). In Africa where AIDS is killing people at a rate that is terrifying, medications cost 10 times what they cost in other countries where there is much less need. This has created a black market situation, which the Rx companies are even MORE pissed about. There is a great deal of rhetoric on both sides, but the bottom line is this: One side wants to live, the other side wants money.

People do it HERE in the US. They go to Canada or some other nearby market because they can’t afford their meds. And the Rx companies say “Hey hey hey…supply and demand! It’s fair in all the other industries…”

And the bottom line, which they well know, but sidestep is that if K-Mart wants to sell Legos for $10 in Wisconsin and for $50 in California, no one dies. Medication isn’t the same, and it should have to follow different rules. But, the government does what the money tells it too, and I’d keep my eyes open for the next four years on this issue. I have a feeling the Fat Cats with the Rx companies have just been DYING to get some legislation passed in our current political…climate.

And THAT is the real problem behind the Rx industry. Money. Big Brother medicine. And you could go ON AND ON AND ON about the rift between what they do and what they SHOULD do, but not in this particular case.

Aspirin and other over-the-counter meds have been marketed for years, btw. Rx companies advertising is not new...just the prescription drugs.

I'll tell you truthfully, one of the MAIN reasons the ad campaigns started was because Doctors WERE NOT staying educated on the changes in Rx, and because companies were bribing Doctors to prescribe one type and monopoly the market. And yes, for the most part, the ads are very responsible because they HAVE TO BE. Listening to those lists of "possible side effects" can make me shiver.

The number one thing that is making your insurance rise...which has been making your insurance rise for the last several years, and which will seemingly continue unchecked, is one single factor....

FRAUD.

This is a good issue to be educated about, but be certain when you educate yourself that you go beyond one or two articles written from the same source.

And hey, gender! It's nice to see you. My hate mail has dropped significantly since you showed up

MP

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

MP... we FINALLY agree! (kinda)

First of all, I'd just like to say that I think I'm in love with BrainyBeauty. Her post was well-informed, reasoned, well-argued, and beautifully illustrates the incredible complexity of this issue. Now she must become my bride.

The cost of developing new drugs is enormous. For every effective drug that goes to market there are literally hundreds that fall by the wayside in the various stages of testing. As BB and MP rightly point out, the pharmaceutical companies are businesses which, like any other, are attempting to turn a profit. Still, it would seem that even the high cost of drug development would not justify some of the outrageous prices the drug companies are charging.

Admittedly, I don't know very much about the drug business, but it does seem to me that the drug companies are exploiting the unique economic forces that exist in health care. As MP correctly points out, the laws of supply and demand that govern economics are different when it comes to drugs and health care than they are for other sectors of the economy.

To evoke Economics 101, ordinarily price is dictated by the interplay of two inverse elastic forces: demand and supply. When demand increases (assuming supply remains the same), prices rise. When supply increases (assuming static demand), prices fall. The two forces balance each other because when price becomes too high, people stop buying and demand falls, bringing prices back down. If supply increases, price falls and producers reduce production.

But what exists in in health care is an inelastic demand. No matter how the prices of drugs and medical care rise, demand never decreases. When we're gravely ill, we feel entitled to treatment. Whether this is reasonable or not (and I believe it is), this results in a situation in which the cost of medical care spirals up and up and out of control.

The fact is, though, that the drug companies produce an extremely good product. Drugs today are better than ever and it seems the rate of medical advancement is increasing all the time. With so many potential new treatments in development and the vast untapped knowledge of the human genome still to be exploited, we can't afford to come up with economic solutions that would obstruct medical advancement. At the same time, though, it's self-evident that the whole objective of medical advancement is to improve the health and quality of life of human beings, and medicine obviously can't do this if we can't afford to treat them.

It's a tough question. I'm glad it's not up to me to solve it.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 03-11-2001 at 11:24 AM]

 

[Madame Pandora]

Oh, FINE Ollie...be in love with BrainyBeauty...I'm DONE pining for you!

Seriously, all your economic insights are informative, but I'm not certain they apply.

The thing with Rx is this: The FIRST pill might cost a company 50 years of research and $1 billion in overall cost, but every pill after that only costs them pennies.

Yes, the medical companies have to make a profit. Yes, there has to be a balance so that the best medical minds in the world will continue to be PUSHED toward R&D.

Here is what bothers me, and I posed this argument to several people "in the know" and got smug silence.

In 99% of all business, the mindset is to "create" demand. As your Economics 101 proves, creating demand is what business is all about.

With Medicine, however, there is an intrinsic EVIL in creating demand because the only way to create demand is to KEEP PEOPLE SICK. In other words, if we "cure" it all today, we are out of business.

To you and I and a great number of physicians and medical professionals worldwide, that is a repulsive horror. But, to some guys sitting in meetings, that is exactly what gets discussed. And THAT is what needs to be exorcised from the industry.

Rx is a business, yes, but it has SPECIAL considerations. It also has some of the biggest lobbying power in the world - and it plays by many different rules because many times the privately owned companies may house here, but are based in foreign countries.

It's a ball game, and it's a hard one, and there are real lives on the line.

Like I said...there is MORE than enough reason to throw stones at the Rx companies. TV ads just aren't one of them.

MP

 

[Gaucho]

Brainy and Ollie, Sitting in a Tree...

I don't have a single thing to add, except...

Ollie, can I be Best Man?

or if there's going to be a mud-wrestling match for your attentions

I want front row seats!

Seriously, though, I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to Vixen, for starting an excellent thread, and for Bender, Brainy, MP and Ollie for rescuing it when it looked like it might descend into terminal flirtation (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you).

I confess that I don't know a fucking thing about pharmaceuticals other than what I see on television and what I see in those ads scares the living crap out of me. It would be nice (and it seems, quite naive) to think that somewhere in this drug chain there is someone who gives a shit about the patient and not just the bottom line.

And while I'm on the subject, I would like to nominate Ollie as the official Doctor Of The BB. He's honest, intelligent, caring, discriminating in his taste for women, and way more experienced at looking at pussy than anyone else here. Hurry up and get through that residency, Doc! You got a lot of, um, sick people waiting for you here.

Laurel, what do you think?

 

[TN_Vixen]

I, too

would like to thank BB and MP and Oliver for contributing and voicing their intelligent thoughts on this subject. I, however have run out of gas. This is an issue with which I deal every day. It is nice to have fresh perspectives.