Healthy Skepticism Library item: 20121

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: Magazine

DTC ads hotly debated
Pharmacy Today 2001 Jan3, 12

Full text:

Pharmac was accused of making “distorted and misleading” claims, as a review of direct-to-consumer advertising got underway at the Advertising of Therapeutics Forum.

The forum, organised by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Association of New Zealand advertisers, followed the December release of a Ministry of Health discussion paper on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines.

The forum heard from stakeholders ranging from the Consumers Institute through to the media. It also gave pharmaceutical companies the chance to refute arguments against DTC advertisements, driven primarily by Pharmac.

Left Forum
Further dissension between industry and Pharmac was highlighted when Pharmac representatives left the forum to before hearing the industry’s point of view.

New CEO
The Pharmaceutical Society council has decided to proceed with the appointment of a new CEO, to replace Jim Thomson who retires in February.

“There has been much discussion about the future role of the society, but in the meantime it continues as it, and we will need a CEO”, said Bernie McKone.

Interviews were held in mid December, and an appointment expected at the time of going to press.
At the forum, Pharmac argued that DTC advertising drove up demand for subsidised pharmaceuticals and put fiscal pressures on the pharmaceutical budget.

It claimed that between July last year and June this year, three drug advertising campaigns cost the government an extra $7.4 million. This was due to a dispensing increase of 62% for Flixotide, 136% for Zocor, and 39% for Lamisil.

But according to Peter Schweikert, managing director of GlaxoWellcome, Pharmac’s submission was misleading and inaccurate. He told the forum that “arguments against DTC were emotional, anecdotal, and not based in fact”.

Industry’s view
Refuting Pharmac’s claims regarding Flixotide, Peter Schweikert said the actual growth in Flixotide dispensings was 32%. And the volume of units dispensed did not rise to over 6 million units as reported by Pharmac, but went from 700,000 to 900,000 units.
He said the actual growth rate in Australia – where DTC advertising is prohibited – was 34% over the same period.

“So the inference that the rise in dispensing is attributable to DTC is spurious”, he added. Pharmac was also taken to task by the Researched Medicines Industry on a number of points it made in its written submission to the review.

Among these were claims that DTC advertising encourages patients to swap to newer, more expensive medicines, when older cheaper medicines may work equally as well.

Pharmac also argued that DTC advertising puts pressure on the drug-buying agency to subsidise products. Viagra and Celebrex are just two drugs that Pharmac has been asked to fund as a result of television advertising.

It added that DTC advertising targets the vulnerable, damages doctor/patient relationships and presents an unbalanced picture of risks associated with medicines.

The RMI argued that DTC advertising of prescription medicines responsibly meets consumer demand for medical information.

Spokeswoman Crystal Beavies denied claims that drug advertising increases fiscal pressures, since most of the 46 drugs advertised last year were not subsidised. Indeed, she said DTC advertising can assist in preventing more expensive secondary services care that might otherwise be required.

Worthwhile
After the forum, GlaxoWellcome’s Peter Schweikert said it was interesting to note “exaggerations and inaccuracies presented by Pharmac compared with the detailed accuracy that is required of the pharmaceutical industry”.

He said it was clear that Pharmac was the main opponent of DTC advertising. Other stakeholders, such as the New Zealand Medical Association anf the Consumers Institute, did not seem opposed to DTC advertising, but had reservations about the controls in place.

Director of the Advertising Standards Authority Glen Wiggs said the ASA was willing to support industry regulation of drug advertising with some tightening of controls. “Most stakeholders seemed willing to pursue this option”, he said.

The Discussion Paper
The discussion paper outlined four options for the future of DTC advertising ranging from retaining the present regulations under industry control through to a total ban.

The alternatives are to tighten the rules but keep DTC under industry management – which most stakeholders at the forum seemed in favour of – or tighten the rules and replace industry management with government management of DTC.

The review was ordered by health minister Annette King, following concerns over the influence of drug advertising on consumer and calls for it to be banned.

Its terms of reference are to ensure New Zealand has a policy that is in the best interest of consumers, is safe, and as practicable and cost-effective as possible.

Considerations
The review will consider whether any changes in DTC advertising policy are practical or consistent with international trends, and technological advances. Options will also be assessed on evidence of health improvements or harm resulting from DTC advertising.

A recent Australian review examining the country’s ban on drug advertising took documented health benefits into account, only to conclude that DTC advertising did not provide a net public benefit, despite some individuals being helped.

DTC advertising of prescription medicines remains prohibited in every country apart from New Zealand and United States.

Pending the outcome of the consultation, the appropriateness of DTC advertising of over-the-counter medicines and supplements may be investigated.

A copy of the discussion paper is available on the Ministry of Health’s website, www.moh.govt.nz