Prescription Drug Advertising on Television
Colorado Study Shows Few Viewers Ask Their Doctors about the Drugs
Jan 15, 2009
A 2008 Colorado study indicates only 3.5% of patients visiting a doctor or health clinic inquired about a specific drug and that doctors prescribed the medicine only half of those times. That prompts the question: Are "ask your doctor" commercials worth the estimated $5 billion being spent on them annually, or the viewers’ scorn of the long lists of drug side effects?
A report in the Annals of Family Medicine said 168 clinicians reported on 1,647 "patient encounters" for the study. The 3.5% inquiry figure is about half of what was indicated in a similar 2003 study. When researchers included only recently advertised drugs in their calculations, the percentage of inquiries fell to 2.6.
Brian Alexander of MSNBC said some observers believe the new study was flawed because much of it was conducted at health clinics among low-income patients who might not have seen many of the commercials. That point was confirmed by the fact that 7.2% of private practice patients inquired about a drug compared to 1.7% by clinic patients.
Dr. Lisa Schwartz of Dartmouth Medical School
According to Alexander, Dr. Lisa Schwartz of Dartmouth Medical School said the effectiveness of direct-to-consumer advertising was difficult to measure from such a sample.
The report indicated 62% of the clinicians said the requested drug was not their first choice for treatment. However, 53% prescribed it.
Drawing such statistical conclusions from the inquiries was also limited because there were only 58 actual inquiries with which to work.
Aurora Colorado Medical Team
The study was conducted by an Aurora, Colorado medical research team composed of Bennett Parnes, MD; Peter C. Smith, MD; Christine Gilroy, MD; Javan Quintela, BS; Caroline B. Emsermann, MS; L. Miriam Dickinson, PhD; and John M. Westfall, MD, MPH. Doctors Parnes and Gilroy are with the University of Colorado School of Medicine. The others are with Colorado research networks.
They reported that clinicians seldom thought the drug requests had a negative impact on the medical visit.
American pharmaceutical companies began advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers in 1997 after the Food & Drug Administration relaxed its rules against such advertising. TNS Media Intelligence says American companies were spending about $5 billion per year on advertising prescription drugs, but added that the spending began decreasing in 2007.
New Zealand Also Allows Drug Advertising
New Zealand is the only other country known to allow the advertising of prescription drugs.
The drug industry says the commercials help educate people on undertreated ills and on available remedies.
However, Alexander reported that some medical leaders believe such advertising encourages the use of unnecessary drugs and the TV commercials provide too little information about the drugs.
Dr. Schwartz, for instance, told MSNBC that Lunesta commercials feature "a gentle moth floating in through a bedroom window," but fail to mention how long it takes the drug to act and how little additional sleep it provides.
On the other hand, some print advertising for prescription drugs covers two pages filled with small type that is a challenge for anyone to read.
Decreasing Return on Commercials
Only the drug companies know how many sales they must generate to justify the billions they spend on direct-to-consumer advertising. It must be assumed they would not do it if is not profitable.
Recent reports of cutbacks in such spending may indicate that they have reached a point of declining return on that type advertising. The prospect of greater government regulation may decrease the spending even more.
References:
- "Lack of Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising on the Physician-Patient Encounter in Primary Care," Annals of Family Medicine, January-February 2009
- "Direct-to-consumer drug ads losing their punch," by Brian Alexander, MSNBC.com, Jan 12, 2009
- "With More Oversight on the Horizon, Drugmakers Work to Polish Image," by Ceci Connolly, The Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2009
