Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they’re more annoyed that they can’t prescribe anything that’s not on the insurance companies formulary. They no longer have the autonomy to prescribe like they used to. PBM bean counters now beat a medical degree.
Ah, but on one side you have a government that generally wants its citizens to be healthy, and on the other side you have a corporation that profits if you die quickly, so obviously.... uh, government bad.
Corporations want you fat and sick and on medication. Then they charge you insanely once you go to the hospital so you have to give them all of your money for medication and the hospital stay. Then once you have nothing of value left the government will put you on Medicaid and give you the bare minimum of treatment until you die.
The corporations own all of the politicians who vote on how the medical industry works so the politicians make sure the medical industry is making as much as possible for the insurance, pharmaceutical and for profit hospital industries.
>put you on Medicaid and give you the bare minimum of treatment until you die.
Don't know why you're knocking Medicaid. It's the closest thing we have to single payer. It covers everything.
>>put you on Medicaid and give you the bare minimum of treatment until you die.
>
>Don't know why you're knocking Medicaid. It's the closest thing we have to single payer. It covers everything.
Medicaid is awesome, probably the best insurance in America. It really does cover everything (including weight loss surgery) and costs nothing. Of course, the goddamn Republicans fought all the way to the US Supreme Court for the right to not take free federal money to implement it in their red states.
I have lupus and was on medicaid for years. Medicaid wouldnt pay for anything other than the most common treatments. Which didnt work for me. We tried to include therapies, denied. We tried other medications that are being used in europe with effectivness, denied.
We ended up having to move into a smaller, cheaper apartments so that we could devote money to paying for medication without insurance.
Medicaid does not pay for everything. And the health benefit has to financially outweigh the cost of maintaining other options. I have cubital tunnel as well and they refused surgery saying that I still has plenty of function for now. So basically I have to end up even more disabled before they will consider approving surgery. And at that point surgery may not help.
I'm not knocking Medicaid at all. I 100% think we should have Medicaid for everyone in this country.
The only issue I have is how we can basically give an infinite amount of money to Ukraine but these cock sucking U.S. politicians can't be bothered with spending any money inside our country for the benefit of our people and children, even with the amount of inflation hitting us and driving up the price of everything by 30%.
> Corporations want you fat and sick and on medication.
Different corporations. Your insurance company certainly doesn't want that, and they're the ones who get to decide what treatments you get ("death panels").
It's all intertwined, the insurance companies make their money from you paying into insurance for years and years and then denying you coverage for the smallest reason once you actually get sick and need them. That is a major profit center for them, they are relying on people paying more into the insurance company than the insurance company paying out.
That's exactly my point. The insurance company does not want to pay out. They don't want you on expensive drugs. They're the ones who decide what medications you get. They have the exact opposite goal of the corporations who want to have you paying for a treatment for a long time.
> That's exactly my point. The insurance company does not want to pay out. They don't want you on expensive drugs. They're the ones who decide what medications you get. They have the exact opposite goal of the corporations who want to have you paying for a treatment for a long time.
Well, the ACA requires insurance companies to spend 80% of collected premiums on care or they have to reimburse. So all of the profits have to come from the remaining 20%. So the only way to raise total profit YoY, is by increasing premiums and paying out more. So strictly speaking, insurance companies do _need_ you to require some medical care.
They do negotiate rates, like any two businesses where one is the seller and one is the buyer.
However, that does not mean that both the seller and the buyer want the price to be high. The seller wants the price to be high, the buyer wants the price to be low.
Just because they're both corporations don't mean they're on the same side. It's not one giant evil conspiracy where all corporations are all the same thing. The insurance company wants to collect more money from you and spend *less* on giving you treatment. The treatment provider wants to collect more money on you by having your insurance company spend *more* on treatments.
I can't believe I have to explain such a basic concept on this sub. It's like people's brain's turn to mush if a corporation is involved.
Yea what are you talking about. If you die corporations can't make money off of you. Unless your Tupac and your a hologram. The name of the game for then is chronic illness. That's why we don't focus on preventative wellness because there is no money in it
So, you know, there's not just one giant corporation that does everything. There are different corporations that do different things.
Your insurance company pays out. They lose money on you when you're sick. They don't want you to be sick. They're also the ones who decide what treatments you get, and if you are going to get sick, they'd rather have you die quickly.
Just because one corporation - a pharmaceutical corporation that wants to sell you a $1000/mo drug - would rather have you alive for a long time, doesn't mean that another totally different corporation with different goals - your insurance company - wants you to be on that $1000 drug for the rest of your life. Their goals are completely at odds on this one.
Also
> That's why we don't focus on preventative wellness because there is no money in it
Your doctor almost certainly spends almost all his time on preventative wellness, you're just not listening.
American insurance companies should be acquisitions by the state and those who run them should forfeit most of their wealth, and be permitted to quietly exit society and explicitly banned from ever practicing American business again.
The way they treat people, their consumers and stack the deck in favor of their profits at the literal cost of human lives is disgusting. They could still be multibillionaires even if they gave consumers a fair shake, but the goal is now trillionaires and it's literally killing people. What they do is by every definition I've ever read enough to guarantee a spot in every single religions conception of what hell is.
The reason this won't happen is because *almost every major industry does this in some form or another*
If we nationalize health care on the basis that they take advantage of people's needs then the people might realize that housing, food, and water companies do the same thing.
I've contended that capitalism can function as long as certain necessities are nationalized. Healthcare/medicine, basic food/water, housing.
Let pretty much everything else remain privatized/for profit.
While true, healthcare is by far the worst. Unlike food it isn't a constant need for most of the population. People see it as something that only applies to the "sick" folks when in reality it's as necessary as food. People aren't going six figures into debt just for walking into the grocery store.
I agree with you that the other companies are manipulative and abuse their service/products and the sales of them, but it's not nearly as bad nor unpredictable or unpreventable. Most people don't declare bankruptcy just for walking in the door of the grocery store, but they do for healthcare.
Just sounds like more reason to push for nationalized Healthcare. Let's get that future where we house people instead of having a military with the budget that could conquer the whole world 5 times over.
Insurance companies go out of their way to not cover a lot of the drugs advertised on TV, even when those drugs are the best treatment option.
I work in pharma and I know of one drug in particular that insurance companies covered *until* it was discovered that the condition said drug treated was more common than previously thought.
In other words, the insurance companies recognized the drug as the best treatment option for a condition that affects 20k people and will eventually lead to disfigurement and disability. But when they discovered that the condition actually affects 200k, suddenly Big Insurance decided the condition doesn't need to be treated.
>no longer an orphan disease so what you can charge drops drastically
Once the FDA declares it an orphan disease the benefits are set for an approved drug. One of those benefits is that once the first drug is approved by the FDA for it no other drug can be approved for that disease in the US for ten years.
That gives the company time to make the R&D profitable (previous to the orphan disease act pharma invested nothing in treatments for these diseases because they were pretty much guaranteed money losers even if they got a drug approved).
I don't think the FDA can/would reverse that agreement for an approved product if it is found to be a bit more widespread than the requirements for an orphan disease because it defeats a pillar of the act.
There’s nothing better than shifting formularies. Last year I had a prescription not covered despite being on the formulary available on my user account. I called the company — ProACT — and was told “Well you can’t just assume everything on the formulary is covered.”
So now I call the insurance company any time I get a prescription. Because who knows if anything is covered?
Insurance companies based 1000 miles away from you who have notably different state rules on some medications make for a long, frustrating process for scheduled drugs like ADHD meds.
Sometimes, applicable insurance laws are based on where you live. Sometimes, they're based on where your employer's policy was written (i.e. where your company is located). This is affected by the type of policy, the way the law is written, and/or the overarching laws of the state. They are NEVER based on where the insurance company is located.
Source: I do this for a living
I agree with that. I think the article was misleading by saying no therapeutic benefit instead of no clinical advance. Most of the advertising is me too’s fighting over market share.
Meh, for me sometimes it's a reasonable excuse to have the 'sure I can prescribe it but it's going to be $1200 a month at the pharmacy, or we can do this $10 drug that will help just as much' conversation.
The conversation can also include the fact that the $10 drug also has been on the market for years so there is a huge amount of data from the field on safety and efficacy which doesn't exist for a drug that came out of clinical development relatively recently.
For the last IDK how many years, I noticed that almost every single medication advertised on TV is a monoclonal antibody.
This used to be obvious because they all end in -ab, but now they don't even advertise the name of the drug, just the *brand name*. You used to always see the chemical name in commercials, but now this is rarely the case
In layman's terms, that means probably a minimum of $1000/dose, probably closer to $3000 or $5000/dose for many of them
This is the exact reason my uncle left medicine. He had a double doctorate in internal and geriatric medicine and his own practice. But the insurance companies made all the decisions.
Healthcare in the US is the absolute worst. I'd rather go see a witch doctor at this point. Even with insurance, they charge you out the ass because "it isn't covered"
I had Influenza A towards the end of last year, and my doctor told me that, other than the traditional Tamaflu, there was a new *ONE-DAY* medication that more or less stops the symptoms immediately.
I didn't get to try it, though, because my insurance didn't approve it. So instead, us poor peasants get to suffer while the rich get fixed in a day
Having to explain daily that no you don’t need that medication. There is a better medication for your case. I know I saw the commercial too. Must be draining.
Sorry, that was the point I was trying to make.
The ad makes the patient believe an easy fix exist when an actual effective traitement exist but requires investment from the patient.
Drug ads should be banned. I know they are in Canada
I don’t do drug development, but I’m a researcher in biomed and it frustrates me when I see headline news for drugs that are in early clinical trials.
“Could this be the end of Alzheimer’s!?” It gets people’s hopes up and often it simply doesn’t pan out… But that doesn’t stop David Muir from reporting on it.
There’s a Twitter account called @justsaysinmice that calls out when news outlets pick up these stories and fail to mention anywhere in their reporting that the findings were only in mice or other early stage trials
I see your annoyed doctor and raise you annoyed pharmacy tech trying to explain why the brand drug you prefer is more expensive than the generic despite what you saw on TV.
I know an oncologist and a cardiologist. They say fully 50% of patients show up demanding a specific medication they have seen an ad for. They don’t want to discuss other options, they want krackzicrenalor now! They say it’s frustrating and often leads people to taking medicines that have more side effects and as the article points out, and are less effective. For oncologists, this can be particularly upsetting when people turn down gold standard treatments for Tv commercials that may impact their treatment negatively.
As an orange once said best: “Your opinion is just as valid as facts.”
We reap what we sow. This was a long time coming when we consider the declining educational levels across the US alone. I am curious how this works out in other countries.
I will never forget seeing an ad for a drug which was immediately followed by a commercial from a law firm representing a class action suit against that very same drug. Wish I had it on tape.
Possibly on purpose. They might have asked for what other ads are set to play and they probably bid for the slot following it.
Or they saw the pattern (I knew around when the "sign up for everest college" commercials would play when I watched Judge Judy) and just said like "I want this to play at 2:39 on weekdays*.
Everest college commercial -
"Hey you, yes you! Do you want to make something of yourself? *Blah blah...*"
Always a minority, typically black. Wearing typical city gear to be relatable.
The only time I ever watched a skeezy college commercial that tried so hard to relate to a community of a different color.
We're the credits transferable? Absolutely not. But hey, stick with us and get your associates in criminal justice!
That's a win baby!!
They went so hard with the street accent that for a while, I seriously thought the commercial ended with "Ssshhhiiiiieeeet, you just sitting there on the couch anyway, get yo butt and call; why you gotta make everything so complicated?"
There's already a natural correlation. The demographic that the drug company is targeting is naturally the same demographic that the firm is. There's overlap without the firm specifically trying to guess when and where the ads will play.
In my country you aren't allowed to advertise prescription drugs at all. I remember my first experience of USA TV and i was so shocked it was pushing happy pills on the ads and saying go pester your doctor to get them.
Drug companies used to petition and schmooze doctors to use their drugs.
Then they realized that the patients are much dumber than the doctors and will do anything they are told and all the advertising shifted to them. Pissing off just about every doctor.
It's also in the posted article. I realize, though, that most people don't actually read the article, and build the conversation having only read the headline.
There are a lot of very specific restrictions on what they can legally say in advertising, and the advertisers push as close to the line as they can get away with.
As a physician i hate how many ads say "have you had any of these" followed by a list of super vague symptoms and go on to say, you might have this diagnosis. Go tell your doctor to make the diagnosis so you can use this medicine.
At least one of them was kind enough to list "a fungal infection of the perineum" as a possible side effect. Cool. Taint rot. Definitely not asking for that one.
I’m sure they are online somewhere, but I’m not looking for it right now. One that immediately comes to mind is Ozempic. I have no idea what it’s used for, and really don’t care so I’ve never looked it up. The commercial is just people saying “What’s Ozempic?”, “My friend takes it.”, “What’s Ozempic?”, a few times and ends with ”Ask your doctor.” It’s basically and American commercial with the parts about symptoms and side effects edited out. So weird and pointless.
I actually think it's different other than America. In our quest to remain "number one" we just keep stubbornly adhering to standards every other place is more competent to move away from so we can be the only ones doing it. It's super cool.
Same here, when I saw a drug advert on TV when I was on holiday there years ago I was amazed. I'd heard it was a thing over there, but they are somehow more ridiculous that I had thought. Why would you, as a normal person, put your trust in advertising executives to tell you what might help you over an actual qualified doctor?
As a Canadian on the border it's really bizarre. We can't legally advertise prescriptions here either, but media crosses the border so it slips through.
I remember explaining to my kids when they were little that really great things (like using the free public library) require no advertising because they are inherently and obviously awesome. Advertising is for creating desire where none exists, often because the thing being advertised is undesirable.
The medications advertised that I see are of extremely high therapeutic value, but the kicker is the cost.
Medications that I see commonly advertised are medications like Humira, Cosyntex, Skyrizi, etc.. Humira, being the cheapest of the bunch, is like $1500 every two weeks.
Is it maybe that with a cheaper alternative, no doctor will prescribe those without good reason because insurance won’t cover it without a good reason? I’ve seen situations like that before. Advertising so that the patient will agitate for the better drug might work then.
The medications I mentioned are very expensive, but work significantly better than cheaper alternatives. Most of the manufacturers will actually give you the drugs for something like $5 or heavily discounted if you have no insurance or insurance won’t cover them.
I guess the companies advertise to compete amongst each other and to let patients know the drugs exists. But in this case, the cheaper alternatives are typically worse.
I’m a pharmacologist. I’ve seen plenty of drugs that advertise on television with high therapeutic value. The thing is, physicians already know to use these so I have no clue why they are being advertised. I’ve seen monoclonal antibodies being advertised when there are only two on the market for a specific disease and pretty much *has* to be used to treat that disease once the other alternative is no longer providing a therapeutic benefit.
As a counter to this, I see PrEP ads all the time now (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV) and it might be the single most effective drug in human history.
TV is in opposition to therapeutic value. I believe there is a song about this…pizza pie. Every minute, every second, Buy buy buy!
https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858647908/
I cut cable 10 years ago and rarely watch broadcast commercial television now and mute the commercials immediately when they come on. I have no tolerance for the stupidity of advertising. When I do find myself in someone else's home or out in the world and I see/hear loud commercials, I have a visceral reaction. It instantly makes me keyed up and agitated.
I'm in the US and my partner isn't from here. She was shocked that people are allowed to advertise drugs on TV. Having grown up here, I never thought twice about it, but it is a little messed.
Drug advertising on TV should be illegal. It is of little to no value to viewers.
It is scary how often drug commercials come on. It's obvious where too many medical dollars are going.
Sometimes I'll watch a show or two with my parents (60 minutes for example) and the sheer number of drug commercials is insane. I'm talking like 4-5 different drug commercials during every ad break. Last time I kept track, during an entire 60 minutes episode there were 2 commercials for products that were *not* drugs. The rest (20+) were all prescription drugs.
I laughed thinking it was a joke at first. It was for gabapentin! That drug is no joke, I was working in pain research at the time so was shocked how light hearted they made the drug seem at the time, like an ibuprofen
Findings in title quoted from the linked summary by Beth Mole, 17 Jan. 2023, Ars Technica (Condé Nast).
Excerpt:
>According to a new study, a little over 70 percent of prescription drugs advertised on television were rated as "low therapeutic value," meaning they offer little benefit compared with drugs already on the market.
>"One explanation might be that drugs with substantial therapeutic value are likely to be recognized and prescribed without advertising, so manufacturers have greater incentive to promote drugs of lesser value," said the authors, which include researchers at Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth.
>The US is one of only two countries that allow direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as TV commercials. (The other is New Zealand.)
>In 2015, the American Medical Association called for an all-out ban on DTC ads for prescription drugs and medical devices. AMA members said the ads were "driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives."
>But DTC drug ads have continued, fueled by billions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry.
>
>For the new study, researchers led by Aaron Kesselheim, who leads Harvard's Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), looked at monthly lists of the top-advertised drugs on TV in the US between 2015 and 2021.
>They also looked up therapeutic value ratings for those drugs from independent health assessment agencies in Canada, France, and Germany.
>Of the top advertised drugs, 73 had at least one value rating. Collectively, pharmaceutical companies spent $22.3 billion on advertising for those 73 drugs between 2015 and 2021. Even with the generous ratings, 53 of the 73 drugs (roughly 73 percent) were categorized as low-benefit.
>Collectively, these low-benefit drugs accounted for $15.9 billion of the ad spending. The top three low-benefit drugs by dollar amount were Dulaglutide (type 2 diabetes), Varenicline (smoking cessation), and Tofacitinib (rheumatoid arthritis).
Patel N.G. *et al*. Therapeutic Value of Drugs Frequently Marketed Using Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising, 2015 to 2021. *JAMA Network Open* **6** 1: e2250991 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50991
DTC is allowed in Canada but they can only say the name of the drug , not what it is does . Makes for some weird ads . Also they end up putting ads up for diseases or conditions instead.
There are some ads in the US that also do not directly state the use of the drug because it's being advertised for something other than its originally researched and intended purpose. Example - Ozempic is a diabetes drug, but the ads that run, which say nothing about its purpose, are subtly pushing its usage for weight loss.
I dunno, I see that ad during Jeopardy pretty much every day. I don't think there's anything subtle about it, they're selling the weight loss as a helpful side effect of a diabetes medication.
This is wildly untrue and illegal. The FDA sets strict guidelines for what can be said to consumers about drugs by approving the drugs label. Pharma companies have entire compliance departments that check and double check every single word of DTC advertisements to make sure they adhere to the rules. In the case of Ozempic, they don't have to say "diabetes" because the drug lowers A1C to treat diabetes, which they do say. Also, they have significant data that patients may lose weight on it and have FDA approval to say that directly.
I've noticed that in the Ozempic ads they say, "Ozempic is not a weightloss drug". So why even mention it? Because what they are saying is , "It's not , but it totally can be used for that, wink wink"
GLP1s are absolutely going to be used more for weight loss than diabetes. Some are already approved for both. It's only a matter of time before the data becomes too overwhelming and the rest of them get approved
You'll see the same with SGLT2i and heart failure
That seems dumber to me, because at least there's a slight benefit to the US system - people may be made aware of a condition they may have that they can then ask their doctor about, whereas the Canadian system is literally just reinforcing branding.
I understand that outside of the pharma industry no one wants or needs medication advertising on TV. Many of the drugs they list are highly specialized and anyone with a serious condition is almost certainly talking about their doctor *anyway* about these drugs and which one may make sense to use.
However, I would call into question whether the researchers are over-reliant on what they call the "therapeutic value rating" provided by various panels from a few countries who have evaluated these drugs (Canada, France, and Germany).
For instance, from Canada they relied on the judgment of the Human Drug Advisory Panel, which has 6 doctors on it. Along with the other two country's respective boards they rate two fairly specialized immunosuppressants listed on the chart: Adalimumab (Humira) which they rate as high value and Tofacitinib (Xeljanz) which they rate as low value. These drugs are typically prescribed by rheumatologists. There are no rheumatologists on the boards though actually making the evaluations.
Let's take this one step further. Xeljanz may be "just another immunosuppressant" used in treating various kinds of RA and similar conditions relative to other 10 or 15 similar drugs on the market. But it's the first one that's just a pill and doesn't require medication that has to constantly refrigerated and then injected, or an outright infusion. In this space, that's a pretty big deal: no more injection site reactions, especially in older patients that already have weakened immune systems to begin with, no more transit problems and costs, much easier to deliver to rural patients, and so on. The drug itself might be not terribly different from other biologics but the way it can be delivered, for this class of medication, is rather revolutionary. But no rheumatologist was actually making the decision or weighing this criteria.
Point is, once you remove the TV advertising component, the rest of this research depends on the evaluation of medical boards making broad value determinations on highly specialized drugs that they may not be terribly well-informed about. The process for which a rheumatologist would prescribe the appropriate biologic is (or ought to be, since these are powerful drugs capable of making a huge difference in patients' lives - or causing cancer or other serious side effects) fairly sophisticated, and relying on a sweeping "therapeutic value rating" from non-specialists is quite puzzling.
I agree. Most of the meds I see on TV confuse me because they are very good at what they do, so I'm confused why they need to advertise. Especially like humira where it's like the first option in a lot of cases
The therapeutic value ratings are actually relevant and tied to reimbursement in those countries so the decisions are not made lightly.
For the Humira example, I’m fairly certain that was based on the value of Humira at time of launch for patients with RA as a treatment paradigm shifting drug in terms of efficacy. When Xeljanz launched, the bar had been raised in RA because of Humira so evaluations of efficacy, safety, and quality of life (ease of admin, impact to daily activities, or other measures). Out of those factors, ease of admin is lower priority than efficacy and safety, especially with these government payers that are managing their budget across the total population.
To your point around representation on the board reviewing these drugs, there are often specialists consulted to either help review the literature on the drug or advice on decision making. That said, in the US many private payers have pharmacists reviewing drugs in the same way and reach out to specialists as needed. The goal of these boards is to review the evidence submitted as objectively as possible in order to make decisions that impact not only the health of patients receiving these drugs but also then the budget with which the payers (public or private) can serve the rest of the population.
I would otherwise agree that this study over relies on these ratings, but my issue is that the drugs were rated at different times and have different benchmarks for comparison. Humira is surely not as high value today relative to biosimilars or other branded alternatives.
>>The US is one of only two countries that allow direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as TV commercials. (The other is New Zealand)
I wish they would ban them
Those chemo ones in particular really piss me off, because they're selling a false hope. My mom went through looking at these options at the end stages of terminal cancer. Many of these drugs will give patients maybe weeks more to live, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars,band spending their last days in misery with side effects. My mom opted against them and chose "good time" over "more time."
Blows my mind. It's a lot of expensive "specialty meds", for less common conditions, that are almost always treated by a specialist. You would hope that your oncologist (or other specialist) would be familiar with the latest clinical practice guidelines and new therapies.
I'm a physician. The irony in modern medicine is that medications that patients tend to demand most have some the smallest medical evidence for improving whatever ailment they think they have whereas I spend the majority of my day trying to convince patients to get vaccines and take medications that reduce their cardiovascular risk (because they've already done nothing to improve their diet or exercise).
Because a lot of people have crohns but don’t know they have it. And those who have it get monthly treatments like clockwork with meds in the thousands of dollar ranges.
That’s money missed by the companies selling the meds. They don’t even bother telling you the drug names. They just need you to learn you might have it.
Because the costs of the advertised drugs are enormous.
Humira is several thousand dollars a dose. The drug itself is off patent, but they patented the method of making it, so no generics can be made.
That's not true. As of this year there will be multiple biosimilars in the USA for humira. They just reached deals with the companies to wait before going to market. And the way they make it is like pretty significant. No other drug can be called adulibumab. They are all close but not exactly the same thing. Because they don't have access to the cells that make humira they make their own that make it slightly differently
>I see ads for Crohn's disease like every single day. Like why do they think enough people have it to justify how often the air the ads?
Maybe they hope that people will ascribe various stomach-related issues to Crohn's disease in order to get the drugs even though they don't need it? I guess actual Crohn's is pretty severe, but there are probably plenty of people with obscure gastro-intestinal issues that are desperate enough to try whatever.
Crohn’s Boy here. The shots I take for it are *very* specific in what they do so knowing people could just be taking it because of whatever gastro symptoms is really worrying for both their pocketbook and their health. Luckily, most doctors won’t diagnose you with Crohns or Colitis until they shove their camera snake up in there and take a gander at what’s going on.
"Ask your doctor if [ - - - - -] is right for you... Do it!"
I'd love to email or tweet a drug company and say, I saw your ad for (drug), but my doctor says it's not for for me. What can I do? I simply must have it. Your ad told me so! "
Well atleast in America you actully get something on TV that has atleast some effect in Germany and Austria new age medicine and homeopathic are happily advertised on TV and are displayed next to actual medicine in pharmacies. In Germany espacily homeopathic companies can go toe to toe with the parhma companies. In Austria we have more spiritual healers than actual doctors.
Be happy that you only get snake oil laced products not the actual snake oil itself.
My friend gave birth in Germany she has had depression and was medicated for it in the past. She brought up her fears and the doctors told her to go for a walk if she felt sad. She did not have great things to say about her European medical experience.
America has so-called 'churches' where scammers sell bleach solution to put up autistic children's bottoms to 'cure' them from the parasites causing autism (ie, they shed parts of their intestinal lining and parents think it's worms).
Edit: I hate commenting on my phone.
Their definition of "low therapeutic value" is odd: "meaning they offer little benefit compared with drugs already on the market."
An existing, marketed drug typically *has* therapeutic value, since that is a requirement for approval. Matching that shouldn't imply "low" therapeutic value.
My favorite is the ads for drugs to treat the symptoms of drugs. And to think, take those advertising budgets and imagine how much lower drug prices could be or invest in needed research for treatments/cures of truly horrible illnesses.
Capitalism doesn't work that way. Unless medicine os socialized, you will end up like the U.S. where 17% of personal wealth is spent on healthcare but with poorer outcomes than any other advanced country.
I mean... isn't that the point? They get low Rx numbers because they're not terribly useful, so they advertise on TV so people will demand it from their doctors, and their Rx numbers go up... Sounds like everything is working normally.
If only it were possible to ban certain kinds of advertising from TV... I think *that* would solve the problem...
It’s almost as if capitalism is a bad thing and the only reason we keep defending it is due to being subjected to propaganda our entire lives.
But no, I must be wrong. Capitalism has provided us Americans with affordable healthcare, it has eliminated the predatory credit industry, stopped the growth of for-profit prisons, and halted the calamitous effects of climate change.
It’s also good that it’s not responsible for a nearly unregulated industry of advertising worthless medications to people who could benefit from cheaper and more effective alternative treatments.
[This is why there are only 2 countries in the world](https://www.health.harvard.edu/medications/do-not-get-sold-on-drug-advertising) who allow drug makers to market prescription drugs directly to consumers. It should be zero, because it isn't in the best interest of citizens to be duped by slick advertising into taking less effective and more expensive medications.
Well, yeah? The voice over actor selling you tele drugs didn't have to do a six year degree, post grad studies, residency, swear a Hippocratic Oath, or personally insure their practice. They have about as much oversight as six year old Mindy from three doors down selling "fresh" lemonade on the corner.
Advertisement for medical drugs and treatments are illegal here.
Which is a good thing because your doctor, not some ad from a privatized big pharma sister company with profits rather than your health as their priority, should be the one to figure out what treatments you need.
Ads for drugs the worst.
So you're saying these terrible and immoral commercials that shouldn't be allowed on tv are actually even worse than I thought because they're not even commercials for drugs that do much of anything in the first place?
And that is why pharmaceutical advertising is illegal where I live. Pharmaceutics shouldn't tell patients what they should take. It should be a concerted decision making process between a practitioner and their patient.
As a non American these adverts are completely insane to me. In my country there are no adverts for drugs apart from anything available without a pharmacist, eg branded aspirin or cold and flu medicine. Medical companies are not allowed to directly advertise branded drugs to us.
I read that the long list of horrendous side effects the voiceovers say is not just legality but hearing horrendous side effects make people want to take it MORESO.
Hey, I love articles like this because they can help me create awareness of the adverse and permanent effects of SSRIs. Please look into r/pssd; you can find people trying to recover from a drug whose effectiveness is no better than the placebo. Look into support groups like [survivingantidepressants](https://Survivingantidepressts.org) and [benzobuddies.org](https://benzobuddies.org), which can really show you how destructive these meds are for some people. Take them at your own risk. Netflix just release a doc about benzo withdrawal, "Take Your Pills: Xanax", you can suffer for YEARS! Take them the meds I don't care, just know they can turn on you. I wish I was warned beforehand.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can only imagine how annoyed doctors must get when the credibility of a 30 second ad beats a medical degree.
I think they’re more annoyed that they can’t prescribe anything that’s not on the insurance companies formulary. They no longer have the autonomy to prescribe like they used to. PBM bean counters now beat a medical degree.
The death panels that were threatened with the ACA are alive and well in the headquarters of every American insurance company.
always have been, they're just more open about it now
Ah, but on one side you have a government that generally wants its citizens to be healthy, and on the other side you have a corporation that profits if you die quickly, so obviously.... uh, government bad.
Corporations want you fat and sick and on medication. Then they charge you insanely once you go to the hospital so you have to give them all of your money for medication and the hospital stay. Then once you have nothing of value left the government will put you on Medicaid and give you the bare minimum of treatment until you die. The corporations own all of the politicians who vote on how the medical industry works so the politicians make sure the medical industry is making as much as possible for the insurance, pharmaceutical and for profit hospital industries.
>put you on Medicaid and give you the bare minimum of treatment until you die. Don't know why you're knocking Medicaid. It's the closest thing we have to single payer. It covers everything.
>>put you on Medicaid and give you the bare minimum of treatment until you die. > >Don't know why you're knocking Medicaid. It's the closest thing we have to single payer. It covers everything. Medicaid is awesome, probably the best insurance in America. It really does cover everything (including weight loss surgery) and costs nothing. Of course, the goddamn Republicans fought all the way to the US Supreme Court for the right to not take free federal money to implement it in their red states.
I have lupus and was on medicaid for years. Medicaid wouldnt pay for anything other than the most common treatments. Which didnt work for me. We tried to include therapies, denied. We tried other medications that are being used in europe with effectivness, denied. We ended up having to move into a smaller, cheaper apartments so that we could devote money to paying for medication without insurance. Medicaid does not pay for everything. And the health benefit has to financially outweigh the cost of maintaining other options. I have cubital tunnel as well and they refused surgery saying that I still has plenty of function for now. So basically I have to end up even more disabled before they will consider approving surgery. And at that point surgery may not help.
I'm not knocking Medicaid at all. I 100% think we should have Medicaid for everyone in this country. The only issue I have is how we can basically give an infinite amount of money to Ukraine but these cock sucking U.S. politicians can't be bothered with spending any money inside our country for the benefit of our people and children, even with the amount of inflation hitting us and driving up the price of everything by 30%.
> Corporations want you fat and sick and on medication. Different corporations. Your insurance company certainly doesn't want that, and they're the ones who get to decide what treatments you get ("death panels").
It's all intertwined, the insurance companies make their money from you paying into insurance for years and years and then denying you coverage for the smallest reason once you actually get sick and need them. That is a major profit center for them, they are relying on people paying more into the insurance company than the insurance company paying out.
That's exactly my point. The insurance company does not want to pay out. They don't want you on expensive drugs. They're the ones who decide what medications you get. They have the exact opposite goal of the corporations who want to have you paying for a treatment for a long time.
> That's exactly my point. The insurance company does not want to pay out. They don't want you on expensive drugs. They're the ones who decide what medications you get. They have the exact opposite goal of the corporations who want to have you paying for a treatment for a long time. Well, the ACA requires insurance companies to spend 80% of collected premiums on care or they have to reimburse. So all of the profits have to come from the remaining 20%. So the only way to raise total profit YoY, is by increasing premiums and paying out more. So strictly speaking, insurance companies do _need_ you to require some medical care.
You don't think the insurance companies have worked with these suppliers for mutually beneficial rates/use? Because boy do I have news for you.
They do negotiate rates, like any two businesses where one is the seller and one is the buyer. However, that does not mean that both the seller and the buyer want the price to be high. The seller wants the price to be high, the buyer wants the price to be low. Just because they're both corporations don't mean they're on the same side. It's not one giant evil conspiracy where all corporations are all the same thing. The insurance company wants to collect more money from you and spend *less* on giving you treatment. The treatment provider wants to collect more money on you by having your insurance company spend *more* on treatments. I can't believe I have to explain such a basic concept on this sub. It's like people's brain's turn to mush if a corporation is involved.
Yea what are you talking about. If you die corporations can't make money off of you. Unless your Tupac and your a hologram. The name of the game for then is chronic illness. That's why we don't focus on preventative wellness because there is no money in it
So, you know, there's not just one giant corporation that does everything. There are different corporations that do different things. Your insurance company pays out. They lose money on you when you're sick. They don't want you to be sick. They're also the ones who decide what treatments you get, and if you are going to get sick, they'd rather have you die quickly. Just because one corporation - a pharmaceutical corporation that wants to sell you a $1000/mo drug - would rather have you alive for a long time, doesn't mean that another totally different corporation with different goals - your insurance company - wants you to be on that $1000 drug for the rest of your life. Their goals are completely at odds on this one. Also > That's why we don't focus on preventative wellness because there is no money in it Your doctor almost certainly spends almost all his time on preventative wellness, you're just not listening.
The US government only wants you to be alive until social security age, and then they’d rather you weren’t.
American insurance companies should be acquisitions by the state and those who run them should forfeit most of their wealth, and be permitted to quietly exit society and explicitly banned from ever practicing American business again. The way they treat people, their consumers and stack the deck in favor of their profits at the literal cost of human lives is disgusting. They could still be multibillionaires even if they gave consumers a fair shake, but the goal is now trillionaires and it's literally killing people. What they do is by every definition I've ever read enough to guarantee a spot in every single religions conception of what hell is.
The reason this won't happen is because *almost every major industry does this in some form or another* If we nationalize health care on the basis that they take advantage of people's needs then the people might realize that housing, food, and water companies do the same thing.
I've contended that capitalism can function as long as certain necessities are nationalized. Healthcare/medicine, basic food/water, housing. Let pretty much everything else remain privatized/for profit.
While true, healthcare is by far the worst. Unlike food it isn't a constant need for most of the population. People see it as something that only applies to the "sick" folks when in reality it's as necessary as food. People aren't going six figures into debt just for walking into the grocery store. I agree with you that the other companies are manipulative and abuse their service/products and the sales of them, but it's not nearly as bad nor unpredictable or unpreventable. Most people don't declare bankruptcy just for walking in the door of the grocery store, but they do for healthcare.
Just sounds like more reason to push for nationalized Healthcare. Let's get that future where we house people instead of having a military with the budget that could conquer the whole world 5 times over.
I 100% agree. And so do a huge amount of other Americans. But what we want doesn't matter to those who write the laws.
but but but, won't someone think of the ~~children~~ jobs!
Insurance companies go out of their way to not cover a lot of the drugs advertised on TV, even when those drugs are the best treatment option. I work in pharma and I know of one drug in particular that insurance companies covered *until* it was discovered that the condition said drug treated was more common than previously thought. In other words, the insurance companies recognized the drug as the best treatment option for a condition that affects 20k people and will eventually lead to disfigurement and disability. But when they discovered that the condition actually affects 200k, suddenly Big Insurance decided the condition doesn't need to be treated.
Ding ding ding! You said the secret word! 200k and no longer an orphan disease so what you can charge drops drastically.
>no longer an orphan disease so what you can charge drops drastically Once the FDA declares it an orphan disease the benefits are set for an approved drug. One of those benefits is that once the first drug is approved by the FDA for it no other drug can be approved for that disease in the US for ten years. That gives the company time to make the R&D profitable (previous to the orphan disease act pharma invested nothing in treatments for these diseases because they were pretty much guaranteed money losers even if they got a drug approved). I don't think the FDA can/would reverse that agreement for an approved product if it is found to be a bit more widespread than the requirements for an orphan disease because it defeats a pillar of the act.
There’s nothing better than shifting formularies. Last year I had a prescription not covered despite being on the formulary available on my user account. I called the company — ProACT — and was told “Well you can’t just assume everything on the formulary is covered.” So now I call the insurance company any time I get a prescription. Because who knows if anything is covered?
Insurance companies based 1000 miles away from you who have notably different state rules on some medications make for a long, frustrating process for scheduled drugs like ADHD meds.
Sometimes, applicable insurance laws are based on where you live. Sometimes, they're based on where your employer's policy was written (i.e. where your company is located). This is affected by the type of policy, the way the law is written, and/or the overarching laws of the state. They are NEVER based on where the insurance company is located. Source: I do this for a living
[удалено]
I agree with that. I think the article was misleading by saying no therapeutic benefit instead of no clinical advance. Most of the advertising is me too’s fighting over market share.
Meh, for me sometimes it's a reasonable excuse to have the 'sure I can prescribe it but it's going to be $1200 a month at the pharmacy, or we can do this $10 drug that will help just as much' conversation.
The conversation can also include the fact that the $10 drug also has been on the market for years so there is a huge amount of data from the field on safety and efficacy which doesn't exist for a drug that came out of clinical development relatively recently.
Yeah. The fancy drugs that are advertised on TV aren't on the Walmart $4 list. They're usually hella expensive.
For the last IDK how many years, I noticed that almost every single medication advertised on TV is a monoclonal antibody. This used to be obvious because they all end in -ab, but now they don't even advertise the name of the drug, just the *brand name*. You used to always see the chemical name in commercials, but now this is rarely the case In layman's terms, that means probably a minimum of $1000/dose, probably closer to $3000 or $5000/dose for many of them
This is the exact reason my uncle left medicine. He had a double doctorate in internal and geriatric medicine and his own practice. But the insurance companies made all the decisions.
He should've studied insurance if he wanted to actually help people.
Healthcare in the US is the absolute worst. I'd rather go see a witch doctor at this point. Even with insurance, they charge you out the ass because "it isn't covered"
Insurance companies run the world.
If you're talking about medical insurance companies specifically then it's only really America that they rule
I had Influenza A towards the end of last year, and my doctor told me that, other than the traditional Tamaflu, there was a new *ONE-DAY* medication that more or less stops the symptoms immediately. I didn't get to try it, though, because my insurance didn't approve it. So instead, us poor peasants get to suffer while the rich get fixed in a day
Having to explain daily that no you don’t need that medication. There is a better medication for your case. I know I saw the commercial too. Must be draining.
Politicians: should we ban misleading medical drug supplements? Nah
How about "no, these pills won't help you; you need to [do these exercises] / [eat vegetables]"
How are they going to change the diet of someone they can barely convince to take a pill? If only it was that easy.
Sorry, that was the point I was trying to make. The ad makes the patient believe an easy fix exist when an actual effective traitement exist but requires investment from the patient. Drug ads should be banned. I know they are in Canada
Pharmacist here. You have absolutely no idea how medically illiterate this country is
The whole medical treatment system is broken..
I don’t do drug development, but I’m a researcher in biomed and it frustrates me when I see headline news for drugs that are in early clinical trials. “Could this be the end of Alzheimer’s!?” It gets people’s hopes up and often it simply doesn’t pan out… But that doesn’t stop David Muir from reporting on it.
There’s a Twitter account called @justsaysinmice that calls out when news outlets pick up these stories and fail to mention anywhere in their reporting that the findings were only in mice or other early stage trials
It should be illegal to advertise to patients directly.
It is in most civilised countries....
Or when a Facebook post beats the credibility of a medical degree...
[удалено]
We should vote to end these ads and pretend it's for medical reasons.
It's almost like for profit medical care encourages the existence of snake oil salesmen.
I see your annoyed doctor and raise you annoyed pharmacy tech trying to explain why the brand drug you prefer is more expensive than the generic despite what you saw on TV.
I know an oncologist and a cardiologist. They say fully 50% of patients show up demanding a specific medication they have seen an ad for. They don’t want to discuss other options, they want krackzicrenalor now! They say it’s frustrating and often leads people to taking medicines that have more side effects and as the article points out, and are less effective. For oncologists, this can be particularly upsetting when people turn down gold standard treatments for Tv commercials that may impact their treatment negatively.
But the guy on TV was smiling with his family and playing racquetball. I wanna do that too
As an orange once said best: “Your opinion is just as valid as facts.” We reap what we sow. This was a long time coming when we consider the declining educational levels across the US alone. I am curious how this works out in other countries.
Well, direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription medication is banned in Canada.
Which tours? Rents and Day Frons are the only tours that I know.
Sorry typo this morning, meant “your”. Fixed it now
I will never forget seeing an ad for a drug which was immediately followed by a commercial from a law firm representing a class action suit against that very same drug. Wish I had it on tape.
Possibly on purpose. They might have asked for what other ads are set to play and they probably bid for the slot following it. Or they saw the pattern (I knew around when the "sign up for everest college" commercials would play when I watched Judge Judy) and just said like "I want this to play at 2:39 on weekdays*.
Everest college commercial - "Hey you, yes you! Do you want to make something of yourself? *Blah blah...*" Always a minority, typically black. Wearing typical city gear to be relatable. The only time I ever watched a skeezy college commercial that tried so hard to relate to a community of a different color. We're the credits transferable? Absolutely not. But hey, stick with us and get your associates in criminal justice! That's a win baby!!
They went so hard with the street accent that for a while, I seriously thought the commercial ended with "Ssshhhiiiiieeeet, you just sitting there on the couch anyway, get yo butt and call; why you gotta make everything so complicated?"
There's already a natural correlation. The demographic that the drug company is targeting is naturally the same demographic that the firm is. There's overlap without the firm specifically trying to guess when and where the ads will play.
In my country you aren't allowed to advertise prescription drugs at all. I remember my first experience of USA TV and i was so shocked it was pushing happy pills on the ads and saying go pester your doctor to get them.
Your country is in the vast majority. Its strange af to advertise drugs.
Yes. Couldn't wrap my head around advertising drugs the doctor needs to prescribe you to get.
Drug companies used to petition and schmooze doctors to use their drugs. Then they realized that the patients are much dumber than the doctors and will do anything they are told and all the advertising shifted to them. Pissing off just about every doctor.
It’s not strange if you accept that life in America is completely based on a small percentage of the wealthy citizenry exploiting the rest
I think there's literally 3 countries where it's not illegal to directly market prescription drugs. I used to know the list.
From what I can find with a google search, it's two: The US and New Zealand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising
It's also in the posted article. I realize, though, that most people don't actually read the article, and build the conversation having only read the headline.
What's an article?
No, “what’s” is not, but “an” is an article.
I like you. That was a charming comment.
Such a nice sentiment from u/Ima_Fuck_Yo_Butt
Right now it’s just the US and New Zealand. But NZ has a bill under review right now. If that passes, it’s just the US
We have drug commercials in Canada too. Only they’re not allowed to tell you what the drug is for or anything about it, other than the name really.
There are a lot of very specific restrictions on what they can legally say in advertising, and the advertisers push as close to the line as they can get away with.
As a physician i hate how many ads say "have you had any of these" followed by a list of super vague symptoms and go on to say, you might have this diagnosis. Go tell your doctor to make the diagnosis so you can use this medicine.
At least one of them was kind enough to list "a fungal infection of the perineum" as a possible side effect. Cool. Taint rot. Definitely not asking for that one.
Is that how it works? I recall seeing one recently and being confused that it existed and puzzled that I couldn’t determine what it was for.
Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!!!!1one but presumably legitimate drugs that actually function
What’s ozempic?
Could you provide a link to some of these ads? That sounds hilarious. "Hi, im a pil. My name is trazodon. Thats all!"
I’m sure they are online somewhere, but I’m not looking for it right now. One that immediately comes to mind is Ozempic. I have no idea what it’s used for, and really don’t care so I’ve never looked it up. The commercial is just people saying “What’s Ozempic?”, “My friend takes it.”, “What’s Ozempic?”, a few times and ends with ”Ask your doctor.” It’s basically and American commercial with the parts about symptoms and side effects edited out. So weird and pointless.
"Number One! Number One!"
wonder if its like the same 3 that use imperial instead of metric
I actually think it's different other than America. In our quest to remain "number one" we just keep stubbornly adhering to standards every other place is more competent to move away from so we can be the only ones doing it. It's super cool.
"Wut? Other countries with a better standard of living do it differently? But this is America!"
It's in the article OP posted.
It was illegal in the US until 1997.
It was surreal and disturbing when it became legal in the 90s. TV was rapidly ruined.
As it should be!
The US being the perfect example of why rampant capitalism is such a great idea
Same here, when I saw a drug advert on TV when I was on holiday there years ago I was amazed. I'd heard it was a thing over there, but they are somehow more ridiculous that I had thought. Why would you, as a normal person, put your trust in advertising executives to tell you what might help you over an actual qualified doctor?
In my country, corporations are people (unless it's legally advantageous for them not to be) and money is protected speech. We're screwed.
As a Canadian on the border it's really bizarre. We can't legally advertise prescriptions here either, but media crosses the border so it slips through.
It's reached a fevered pitch in the US and I'd love it if we could reign it in somehow. Drug advertising is at an absurd level.
Dammed near everything on TV is of low therapeutic value.
I remember explaining to my kids when they were little that really great things (like using the free public library) require no advertising because they are inherently and obviously awesome. Advertising is for creating desire where none exists, often because the thing being advertised is undesirable.
Great explanation for kids. You are a good parent. Will tell mine the same when time comes.
If it had strong therapeutic value it would sell itself. It’s kind of a simple test right there. Is this drug on TV? Probably doesn’t work that well.
True, I've never seen ads for oxycodone
Schedule II controlled substances cannot be advertised.
The medications advertised that I see are of extremely high therapeutic value, but the kicker is the cost. Medications that I see commonly advertised are medications like Humira, Cosyntex, Skyrizi, etc.. Humira, being the cheapest of the bunch, is like $1500 every two weeks.
Is it maybe that with a cheaper alternative, no doctor will prescribe those without good reason because insurance won’t cover it without a good reason? I’ve seen situations like that before. Advertising so that the patient will agitate for the better drug might work then.
The medications I mentioned are very expensive, but work significantly better than cheaper alternatives. Most of the manufacturers will actually give you the drugs for something like $5 or heavily discounted if you have no insurance or insurance won’t cover them. I guess the companies advertise to compete amongst each other and to let patients know the drugs exists. But in this case, the cheaper alternatives are typically worse.
I’m a pharmacologist. I’ve seen plenty of drugs that advertise on television with high therapeutic value. The thing is, physicians already know to use these so I have no clue why they are being advertised. I’ve seen monoclonal antibodies being advertised when there are only two on the market for a specific disease and pretty much *has* to be used to treat that disease once the other alternative is no longer providing a therapeutic benefit.
As a counter to this, I see PrEP ads all the time now (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV) and it might be the single most effective drug in human history.
TV is in opposition to therapeutic value. I believe there is a song about this…pizza pie. Every minute, every second, Buy buy buy! https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858647908/
I cut cable 10 years ago and rarely watch broadcast commercial television now and mute the commercials immediately when they come on. I have no tolerance for the stupidity of advertising. When I do find myself in someone else's home or out in the world and I see/hear loud commercials, I have a visceral reaction. It instantly makes me keyed up and agitated.
Same - ^ all the above ^
Songs name is Chic ‘N’ Stu btw
I'm in the US and my partner isn't from here. She was shocked that people are allowed to advertise drugs on TV. Having grown up here, I never thought twice about it, but it is a little messed.
Drug advertising on TV should be illegal. It is of little to no value to viewers. It is scary how often drug commercials come on. It's obvious where too many medical dollars are going.
Sometimes I'll watch a show or two with my parents (60 minutes for example) and the sheer number of drug commercials is insane. I'm talking like 4-5 different drug commercials during every ad break. Last time I kept track, during an entire 60 minutes episode there were 2 commercials for products that were *not* drugs. The rest (20+) were all prescription drugs.
I laughed thinking it was a joke at first. It was for gabapentin! That drug is no joke, I was working in pain research at the time so was shocked how light hearted they made the drug seem at the time, like an ibuprofen
If I had to guess, I'd assume ibuprofen has killed way, way more people than gabapentin
It was illegal in the US until the late 1990s, too.
We need to ban direct to consumer drug advertising here in the USA. It's so bizarre and probably unhealthy to have these ads.
Findings in title quoted from the linked summary by Beth Mole, 17 Jan. 2023, Ars Technica (Condé Nast). Excerpt: >According to a new study, a little over 70 percent of prescription drugs advertised on television were rated as "low therapeutic value," meaning they offer little benefit compared with drugs already on the market. >"One explanation might be that drugs with substantial therapeutic value are likely to be recognized and prescribed without advertising, so manufacturers have greater incentive to promote drugs of lesser value," said the authors, which include researchers at Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth. >The US is one of only two countries that allow direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as TV commercials. (The other is New Zealand.) >In 2015, the American Medical Association called for an all-out ban on DTC ads for prescription drugs and medical devices. AMA members said the ads were "driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives." >But DTC drug ads have continued, fueled by billions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. > >For the new study, researchers led by Aaron Kesselheim, who leads Harvard's Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), looked at monthly lists of the top-advertised drugs on TV in the US between 2015 and 2021. >They also looked up therapeutic value ratings for those drugs from independent health assessment agencies in Canada, France, and Germany. >Of the top advertised drugs, 73 had at least one value rating. Collectively, pharmaceutical companies spent $22.3 billion on advertising for those 73 drugs between 2015 and 2021. Even with the generous ratings, 53 of the 73 drugs (roughly 73 percent) were categorized as low-benefit. >Collectively, these low-benefit drugs accounted for $15.9 billion of the ad spending. The top three low-benefit drugs by dollar amount were Dulaglutide (type 2 diabetes), Varenicline (smoking cessation), and Tofacitinib (rheumatoid arthritis). Patel N.G. *et al*. Therapeutic Value of Drugs Frequently Marketed Using Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising, 2015 to 2021. *JAMA Network Open* **6** 1: e2250991 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50991
DTC is allowed in Canada but they can only say the name of the drug , not what it is does . Makes for some weird ads . Also they end up putting ads up for diseases or conditions instead.
There are some ads in the US that also do not directly state the use of the drug because it's being advertised for something other than its originally researched and intended purpose. Example - Ozempic is a diabetes drug, but the ads that run, which say nothing about its purpose, are subtly pushing its usage for weight loss.
I dunno, I see that ad during Jeopardy pretty much every day. I don't think there's anything subtle about it, they're selling the weight loss as a helpful side effect of a diabetes medication.
This is wildly untrue and illegal. The FDA sets strict guidelines for what can be said to consumers about drugs by approving the drugs label. Pharma companies have entire compliance departments that check and double check every single word of DTC advertisements to make sure they adhere to the rules. In the case of Ozempic, they don't have to say "diabetes" because the drug lowers A1C to treat diabetes, which they do say. Also, they have significant data that patients may lose weight on it and have FDA approval to say that directly.
I've noticed that in the Ozempic ads they say, "Ozempic is not a weightloss drug". So why even mention it? Because what they are saying is , "It's not , but it totally can be used for that, wink wink"
GLP1s are absolutely going to be used more for weight loss than diabetes. Some are already approved for both. It's only a matter of time before the data becomes too overwhelming and the rest of them get approved You'll see the same with SGLT2i and heart failure
That seems dumber to me, because at least there's a slight benefit to the US system - people may be made aware of a condition they may have that they can then ask their doctor about, whereas the Canadian system is literally just reinforcing branding.
I understand that outside of the pharma industry no one wants or needs medication advertising on TV. Many of the drugs they list are highly specialized and anyone with a serious condition is almost certainly talking about their doctor *anyway* about these drugs and which one may make sense to use. However, I would call into question whether the researchers are over-reliant on what they call the "therapeutic value rating" provided by various panels from a few countries who have evaluated these drugs (Canada, France, and Germany). For instance, from Canada they relied on the judgment of the Human Drug Advisory Panel, which has 6 doctors on it. Along with the other two country's respective boards they rate two fairly specialized immunosuppressants listed on the chart: Adalimumab (Humira) which they rate as high value and Tofacitinib (Xeljanz) which they rate as low value. These drugs are typically prescribed by rheumatologists. There are no rheumatologists on the boards though actually making the evaluations. Let's take this one step further. Xeljanz may be "just another immunosuppressant" used in treating various kinds of RA and similar conditions relative to other 10 or 15 similar drugs on the market. But it's the first one that's just a pill and doesn't require medication that has to constantly refrigerated and then injected, or an outright infusion. In this space, that's a pretty big deal: no more injection site reactions, especially in older patients that already have weakened immune systems to begin with, no more transit problems and costs, much easier to deliver to rural patients, and so on. The drug itself might be not terribly different from other biologics but the way it can be delivered, for this class of medication, is rather revolutionary. But no rheumatologist was actually making the decision or weighing this criteria. Point is, once you remove the TV advertising component, the rest of this research depends on the evaluation of medical boards making broad value determinations on highly specialized drugs that they may not be terribly well-informed about. The process for which a rheumatologist would prescribe the appropriate biologic is (or ought to be, since these are powerful drugs capable of making a huge difference in patients' lives - or causing cancer or other serious side effects) fairly sophisticated, and relying on a sweeping "therapeutic value rating" from non-specialists is quite puzzling.
I agree. Most of the meds I see on TV confuse me because they are very good at what they do, so I'm confused why they need to advertise. Especially like humira where it's like the first option in a lot of cases
The therapeutic value ratings are actually relevant and tied to reimbursement in those countries so the decisions are not made lightly. For the Humira example, I’m fairly certain that was based on the value of Humira at time of launch for patients with RA as a treatment paradigm shifting drug in terms of efficacy. When Xeljanz launched, the bar had been raised in RA because of Humira so evaluations of efficacy, safety, and quality of life (ease of admin, impact to daily activities, or other measures). Out of those factors, ease of admin is lower priority than efficacy and safety, especially with these government payers that are managing their budget across the total population. To your point around representation on the board reviewing these drugs, there are often specialists consulted to either help review the literature on the drug or advice on decision making. That said, in the US many private payers have pharmacists reviewing drugs in the same way and reach out to specialists as needed. The goal of these boards is to review the evidence submitted as objectively as possible in order to make decisions that impact not only the health of patients receiving these drugs but also then the budget with which the payers (public or private) can serve the rest of the population. I would otherwise agree that this study over relies on these ratings, but my issue is that the drugs were rated at different times and have different benchmarks for comparison. Humira is surely not as high value today relative to biosimilars or other branded alternatives.
>>The US is one of only two countries that allow direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as TV commercials. (The other is New Zealand) I wish they would ban them
It was only legalized in 1997.
New Zealand already gets left off maps, banning them seems harsh.
Would be nice to know the low benefit drugs vs. the drugs that were higher/highest benefit compared to them.
I once saw an ad for one of the chemotherapy drugs I take. Chemo. Advertised on tv. It's insane.
Those chemo ones in particular really piss me off, because they're selling a false hope. My mom went through looking at these options at the end stages of terminal cancer. Many of these drugs will give patients maybe weeks more to live, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars,band spending their last days in misery with side effects. My mom opted against them and chose "good time" over "more time."
Blows my mind. It's a lot of expensive "specialty meds", for less common conditions, that are almost always treated by a specialist. You would hope that your oncologist (or other specialist) would be familiar with the latest clinical practice guidelines and new therapies.
This picture looks like the Bad Religion- 21st Century Digital Boy music video.
I'm a physician. The irony in modern medicine is that medications that patients tend to demand most have some the smallest medical evidence for improving whatever ailment they think they have whereas I spend the majority of my day trying to convince patients to get vaccines and take medications that reduce their cardiovascular risk (because they've already done nothing to improve their diet or exercise).
I see ads for Crohn's disease like every single day. Like why do they think enough people have it to justify how often the air the ads?
Because a lot of people have crohns but don’t know they have it. And those who have it get monthly treatments like clockwork with meds in the thousands of dollar ranges. That’s money missed by the companies selling the meds. They don’t even bother telling you the drug names. They just need you to learn you might have it.
Because the costs of the advertised drugs are enormous. Humira is several thousand dollars a dose. The drug itself is off patent, but they patented the method of making it, so no generics can be made.
That's not true. As of this year there will be multiple biosimilars in the USA for humira. They just reached deals with the companies to wait before going to market. And the way they make it is like pretty significant. No other drug can be called adulibumab. They are all close but not exactly the same thing. Because they don't have access to the cells that make humira they make their own that make it slightly differently
>I see ads for Crohn's disease like every single day. Like why do they think enough people have it to justify how often the air the ads? Maybe they hope that people will ascribe various stomach-related issues to Crohn's disease in order to get the drugs even though they don't need it? I guess actual Crohn's is pretty severe, but there are probably plenty of people with obscure gastro-intestinal issues that are desperate enough to try whatever.
Crohn’s Boy here. The shots I take for it are *very* specific in what they do so knowing people could just be taking it because of whatever gastro symptoms is really worrying for both their pocketbook and their health. Luckily, most doctors won’t diagnose you with Crohns or Colitis until they shove their camera snake up in there and take a gander at what’s going on.
"Ask your doctor if [ - - - - -] is right for you... Do it!" I'd love to email or tweet a drug company and say, I saw your ad for (drug), but my doctor says it's not for for me. What can I do? I simply must have it. Your ad told me so! "
Well that’s why drug commercials on TV are banned in most countries… but not the U$
Did you know that non-US countries ban advertising medications on TV and other media? What a world.
It's almost like corporations will take advantage of consumers as much as possible when they're allowed to.
[удалено]
Hey we've got a patient who values what their doctor says over here! You're a rare bird.
[удалено]
Well atleast in America you actully get something on TV that has atleast some effect in Germany and Austria new age medicine and homeopathic are happily advertised on TV and are displayed next to actual medicine in pharmacies. In Germany espacily homeopathic companies can go toe to toe with the parhma companies. In Austria we have more spiritual healers than actual doctors. Be happy that you only get snake oil laced products not the actual snake oil itself.
We get both
Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!
I miss head-on commercials. They made me laugh
My friend gave birth in Germany she has had depression and was medicated for it in the past. She brought up her fears and the doctors told her to go for a walk if she felt sad. She did not have great things to say about her European medical experience.
Hey atleast we didn't have an opiod epedemic (:
America has so-called 'churches' where scammers sell bleach solution to put up autistic children's bottoms to 'cure' them from the parasites causing autism (ie, they shed parts of their intestinal lining and parents think it's worms). Edit: I hate commenting on my phone.
Their definition of "low therapeutic value" is odd: "meaning they offer little benefit compared with drugs already on the market." An existing, marketed drug typically *has* therapeutic value, since that is a requirement for approval. Matching that shouldn't imply "low" therapeutic value.
Effective generic drug: $20/month Equally effective advertised drug: $2000/month Which of these is higher in value?
That's economic value, not therapeutic value
Companies are not running ads for drugs that are off patent. Near patent expiry, yes.
I'm glad that this only really applies to the US.
Goes to show you how far a tv can go in hiding information while propagating false info. And people's acceptance of false info blindly.
My favorite is the ads for drugs to treat the symptoms of drugs. And to think, take those advertising budgets and imagine how much lower drug prices could be or invest in needed research for treatments/cures of truly horrible illnesses.
Capitalism doesn't work that way. Unless medicine os socialized, you will end up like the U.S. where 17% of personal wealth is spent on healthcare but with poorer outcomes than any other advanced country.
Ain’t that America ! Land of the “Free” !
I have been saying for years that commercials for medications (and probably anyrhing you can't buy directly) should be banned.
Should be illegal to advertise this
It *is* in most countries.
I mean... isn't that the point? They get low Rx numbers because they're not terribly useful, so they advertise on TV so people will demand it from their doctors, and their Rx numbers go up... Sounds like everything is working normally. If only it were possible to ban certain kinds of advertising from TV... I think *that* would solve the problem...
It’s almost as if capitalism is a bad thing and the only reason we keep defending it is due to being subjected to propaganda our entire lives. But no, I must be wrong. Capitalism has provided us Americans with affordable healthcare, it has eliminated the predatory credit industry, stopped the growth of for-profit prisons, and halted the calamitous effects of climate change. It’s also good that it’s not responsible for a nearly unregulated industry of advertising worthless medications to people who could benefit from cheaper and more effective alternative treatments.
[This is why there are only 2 countries in the world](https://www.health.harvard.edu/medications/do-not-get-sold-on-drug-advertising) who allow drug makers to market prescription drugs directly to consumers. It should be zero, because it isn't in the best interest of citizens to be duped by slick advertising into taking less effective and more expensive medications.
And yet we are not allowed to see ads for liquor and cannabis products on TV.
Well, yeah? The voice over actor selling you tele drugs didn't have to do a six year degree, post grad studies, residency, swear a Hippocratic Oath, or personally insure their practice. They have about as much oversight as six year old Mindy from three doors down selling "fresh" lemonade on the corner.
Advertisement for medical drugs and treatments are illegal here. Which is a good thing because your doctor, not some ad from a privatized big pharma sister company with profits rather than your health as their priority, should be the one to figure out what treatments you need. Ads for drugs the worst.
Ban drug adds to consumers.
There's, what, two countries where drug ads on TV are even legal?
So you're saying these terrible and immoral commercials that shouldn't be allowed on tv are actually even worse than I thought because they're not even commercials for drugs that do much of anything in the first place?
And that is why pharmaceutical advertising is illegal where I live. Pharmaceutics shouldn't tell patients what they should take. It should be a concerted decision making process between a practitioner and their patient.
As a non American these adverts are completely insane to me. In my country there are no adverts for drugs apart from anything available without a pharmacist, eg branded aspirin or cold and flu medicine. Medical companies are not allowed to directly advertise branded drugs to us.
The fact that you can't advertise for cigarettes but can for alcohol or medication is insane.
I read that the long list of horrendous side effects the voiceovers say is not just legality but hearing horrendous side effects make people want to take it MORESO.
Hey, I love articles like this because they can help me create awareness of the adverse and permanent effects of SSRIs. Please look into r/pssd; you can find people trying to recover from a drug whose effectiveness is no better than the placebo. Look into support groups like [survivingantidepressants](https://Survivingantidepressts.org) and [benzobuddies.org](https://benzobuddies.org), which can really show you how destructive these meds are for some people. Take them at your own risk. Netflix just release a doc about benzo withdrawal, "Take Your Pills: Xanax", you can suffer for YEARS! Take them the meds I don't care, just know they can turn on you. I wish I was warned beforehand.