Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18551

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Media Release

'Live a Little Simpler' ads a little too simplistic
NAPWA 2010 Aug 5
http://napwa.org.au/media/2010/08/04/live-a-little-simpler-ads-a-little-too-simplistic

Full text:

A pharmaceutical company advertising campaign will create confusion about HIV treatment choices and risks complicating the doctor-patient relationship, the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA) has said.

The organisation says it is dismayed by the appearance of the advertising campaign from Gilead Sciences Australia, currently running in metropolitan and community newspapers with the slogan ‘Live a Little Simpler’. The campaign encourages people living with HIV to seek simplified treatment options, saying ‘Living with HIV is complicated. Your daily treatment doesn’t have to be.’

“This kind of advertisement trivialises issues of treatment choice and the challenges of living long term with HIV,” said NAPWA treatments spokesperson Bill Whittaker. “These ads specifically target people with HIV for marketing purposes; they set up expectations that simple treatment options are available to everyone and that clinical management of HIV is approached by looking at the least number of pills you can take.”

“We support people to make treatment choices that work for their lifestyle and their best health interests, but decisions about which treatments to take must be made by the individual and their treating doctor based on medical evidence, not influenced through media marketing,” he said.

NAPWA is concerned that this form of direct-to-consumer advertising, which has been rare in Australia in the HIV sector, sets a dangerous precedent that will have negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship and the community response to HIV.

“We don’t want to go down the road of US-style advertising of medicines, where you have advertisements plastered all over the place with the net result being confusion among patient groups and higher costs of health care.

“Already NAPWA has received calls from HIV doctors concerned that this campaign leads to justifying the treatment recommendations they have made to their patients. It sets clinical discussions against an unrealistic expectation that everybody should be able to access certain drugs regardless of other considerations for their best health outcomes,” Whittaker said.

“The lack of consultation about this company advertising also means NAPWA and clinicians were not able to work with Gilead on a more appropriate strategy which would support positive people and their doctors without the promotional buzz.”

NAPWA works with a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead, to develop balanced treatments education resources that support rational decision-making and talk honestly about the challenges and benefits of HIV treatment.

“Advertising campaigns like this cost a great deal of money to run and do nothing to improve treatments understanding for people with HIV – indeed they are likely to be counterproductive. We’d rather see the industry use its profits more wisely and sensitively to promote real understanding of HIV treatment issues, not just brand awareness.”

NAPWA will be encouraging a review of the regulations that currently allow this kind of inappropriate advertising, and direct-to-consumer promotions more broadly.

UPDATE, 9 AUGUST: NAPWA and Gilead have released a joint statement noting Gilead’s decision to withdraw the advertising campaign.