Are you sick of drug ads on TV? I certainly am. If you were an alien watching TV, you would think we all have constant diarrhea, rashes, and arthritis. And worse around this time of year, Medicare Advantage plans are in Open Enrollment until March 31st, and Joe Namath is making me nuts! Maybe I watch too much TV, but it seems like pharmaceutical companies are the only corporations that have the money to spend on these constant advertisements. Since 2018, 187 ads for 70 medications have aired half a million times, and drug companies spent $2.8 billion on these ads. Drug companies also spend $20 billion annually advertising direct to health professionals. How many of you have been in a doctor’s office, and seen a well dressed woman (or man) with a briefcase in the waiting room? It was probably a drug salesperson or “detailer” as they are called. They are there to persuade doctors that their product is the best, and they often hand out free samples like candy.
Did you know that the U.S and New Zealand are the only countries that allow this “direct to consumer” advertising (DCTA)? Other countries banned it 70 years ago. (And if you are reading this from another country you should be very grateful!) The reasons why the U.S. allows this advertising is complicated, with First Amendment implications and lack of studies that show the true impact of ads on consumer drug use. However, because it is legal, and because repetition works, companies continue to bombard us. How do we evaluate these ads? Some of them may actually introduce us to drugs that could help us. So we go to our doctor and ask her about the new drug. Sometimes doctors give in to the patient’s demands rather than argue.
Should we try to ban these ads or just control them? (If you are interested in all the pros and cons, this article will tell you more than you need to know.) Banning would likely not work in the U.S. in our current political environment, and controlling ads would require a truly independent agency, something which would also require controlling money in politics. So in addition to car ads, I’m afraid we will continue to see these ads for many years to come. Our best bet is to be highly skeptical of what we hear on TV, ask our doctor what the research and evidence really says about the drug in which we might be interested, and — mute or just turn off the TV!
Why do we listen to these ads anyway? They are annoying and sometimes disturbing. We try to record anything we truly want to watch and then fast forward through the commercials, or as Fran notes, just watch programs that are ad-free, even if you have to pay extra.
Not just limited to drugs – if I see another Carshield ad I will scream! They generally air right behind Joe Namath and I froze the fine print screen awhile back to check out a few things. Right there, at the end of all the disclaimers, “not available in California”. If they can’t profit here, why waste all the ad money?
I find it mildly amusing that these designer drug ads ask you to report to your doctor if you experience any of these “rare” side effects which always include death! My husband’s urologist recommended he take a new drug to drop his uric acid. It worked, but the copay was hideous and he lost all hearing in one ear. We found this out by elimination and digging deep in the drug’s website, and while he regained some of his hearing, he still has significant loss. Reporting it to the doctor was of no use. I wonder how many of his patients suffered the same fate because he didn’t warn them! Keep these coming Linda!
This blog is right on Linda and we as recipients of this trash should boycott the TV sponsors of such garbage but we don’t or can’t because everything we watch on TV is bombarded with ads. They obviously pay the heavy freight on the privilege to advertise so, like you state, either turn off the TV or mute when they come on. Thanks for another enlightening article.