Healthy Skepticism Library item: 7317

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: news

Drohan M.
New! Improved! Drugs! Should drug companies be able to advertise prescription drugs in Canada?
CBC News 2006 Dec 21
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_drohan/20061221.html

Abstract:

Should drug companies be able to advertise prescription drugs in Canada in the same way that makers of new cars or dishwashing detergent market their products? They do it in the United States, as anyone who has ever watched an American television channel can confirm. But such direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is currently banned here.

I use the word currently because a number of media companies are pushing hard to have the rules changed, most notably CanWest MediaWorks, which owns newspapers, radio outlets and television stations from coast-to-coast. In addition to raising the issue repeatedly in speeches and other public appearances, executives of CanWest have filed suit in Ontario Superior Court, claiming the advertising prohibition violates their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court hearings are expected to start in 2007.

As well, Health Canada is in the midst of reviewing its rules and regulations. It is the department responsible for the Food and Drugs Act, which contains the advertising ban. So this represents another potential avenue for rule changes.

It’s clear what the media companies hope to gain from having the restrictions relaxed: more advertising dollars from a sector keen to persuade Canadians that their drug will cure whatever ails them. What is less clear is whether the benefits of changing the existing regulations extend beyond the media firms and the drug companies.

Only two countries in the world – the United States and New Zealand – currently allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. If you have ever watched a U.S. television station, you have seen the result: Some poor soul is suffering from some dire disease or condition; they take the brand name prescription drug; and they are cured. Side-effects, which U.S. law requires be revealed, are listed by the narrator at the end of the ad, often in a rushed undertone that downplays their significance.

Tried-and-true formula

It’s a tried-and-true formula used by advertisers: problem, solution, happy result. The problem differs with the product. With detergent, it’s as simple as dirty dishes or unsightly spots on glasses. With cars, it mostly seems to be a lack of sex appeal that is magically cured by purchasing the latest model. Canada decided some time ago that prescription drugs should not be treated in the same fashion. (Indeed, even some U.S. drug firms are questioning whether such glib marketing messages are damaging the sector’s image.) However, drug companies and media firms in Canada have found some loopholes in the existing rules. Non-prescription drugs are not subject to these rules.

Although prescription drug ads cannot mention both a disease and a drug, they can do one or the other. Thus we have reminder ads, where you are never really sure what the problem is, but you do know that a certain drug will fix it. An example is the television spot sponsored by Viagra that shows lots of middle-aged women dancing around and smiling in the morning. It’s left to our imagination why they are smiling, but we know Viagra had something to do with it.

There are also disease ads, where no drug is named, but viewers are told the terrible things that could happen to them if they have this condition and do not seek treatment. An example is the advertisement showing an angry bull (representing high cholesterol) about to charge some poor woman who doesn’t realize there is a large animal in her backyard and is hanging a red sheet on the clothesline.

“Ask your doctor,” these ads urge. Presumably viewers will ask their doctor and be given a free sample of a drug produced by the firm behind the advertisement.

Reminder ads

The reminder ads truncate the traditional advertising formula and concentrate on the solution and happy result. The disease ads focus heavily on the problem and hope that viewers will be scared enough to search for the solution and happy result themselves. CanWest and some other media companies want to be able to put the two parts together.

But is this really a good idea? Opponents say it will have a number of negative consequences: The more money drug companies spend on advertising in Canada, the higher the price of those drugs will have to be in order to cover advertising costs. One of the reasons pharmaceuticals cost more in the U.S. than in Canada is that much more is spent on advertising south of the border.

In 2006, Canadians spent an estimated $27 billion a year on drugs (the second highest category of health costs after hospitals). Pushing that figure even higher will put added pressure on already strained government health budgets. Those individuals who lack complete insurance coverage for prescription drugs will take the hit in their pocketbook.

There are also health concerns associated with direct-to-consumer advertising. As with all marketing, drug ads persuade people that they need to get a particular product, especially if they are told that this new and improved drug will give them back their health. Studies have shown that sales increase when drugs are heavily advertised. For example, sales of sleeping pills in the U.S. climbed 60 per cent in 2005, not because there was a sudden epidemic of sleeplessness but because two drug makers were spending millions on ads as they fought for market share.

Problems arise when a new drug is heavily advertised and is then found to have adverse effects. Vioxx, a treatment for arthritis, was eventually withdrawn from the market because some users had an increased risk of heart attack, but not before an estimated 45,000 Americans died. Some of them would have sought the drug after seeing the advertisements.

Are there good things to be said about direct-to-consumer advertising? Of course, and they include the fact that such ads raise awareness of certain conditions and the treatments available.

But given the potential negative impact of such advertising on strained health budgets and potentially on health, this is one import from the U.S. that should be turned back at the border.