3 ms·

Patients do not need to be informed of new drugs, and never were until pharmaceutical companies lobbied Congress to remove the ban on direct advertising, which

Patients do not need to be informed of new drugs, and never were until pharmaceutical companies lobbied Congress to remove the ban on direct advertising, which had been put in place as a consumer protection law due to 19th century "snake oil" salesmen/con-men. For doctors, a monthly publication of drugs currently in development, their status, and their uses would be adequate. It'd be much better for doctors to get their information from a published journal than the advertisements in some trade magazine or attractive reps handing out free samples. Regarding You're just running a wealth transfer or insurance program in addition at that point. Yes, that would be a major purpose of nationalizing drug R&D and manufacturing. You could say the same about every public service.

refurb 6y ago
If you want to know why DTC is allowed in the US, you should read the FDA studies on it. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-direct-consumer-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-... The FDA identified several benefits of DTC ads.
- DougWebb 6y ago
  That article provides pretty strong evidence that DTC ads, overall, are bad for patients: 58 percent [of physicians surveyed] agreed strongly that DTC ads make the drugs seem better than they really are. Physicians thought the ads did not convey information about risks and benefits equally well. Seventy-eight percent of physicians believe their patients understand the possible benefits of the drug very well or somewhat, compared to 40 percent who believe their patients understand the possible risks, and 65 percent believe DTC ads confuse patients about the relative risks and benefits of prescription drugs. In addition, about 75 percent of physicians surveyed believed that DTC ads cause patients to think that the drug works better than it does, and many physicians felt some pressure to prescribe something when patients mentioned DTC ads. Eight percent of physicians said they felt very pressured to prescribe the specific brand-name drug when asked. Doctors believe that patients understand that they need to consult a health care professional about appropriate treatment. Eighty-two percent responded either "very well" or "somewhat" when asked whether they believe that their patients understand that only a doctor can decide whether a drug is right for them. Note the last point means that 18% of the doctors believed that their patients thought they knew better than the doctor about whether or not a drug is right for them. The few positive aspects, about patients being better informed about drug therapies that might help them, could be solved by making the monthly journal info I described available online. People go to Google and type in their symptoms and/or the name of their disease if they know it, and end up on sites like drugs.com and webmd.com. If Google were indexing the journal I described, and those other sites pulled from it too (publishing license should allow that, as it would be publicly funded), then patients would see all of the good information about the drugs, without the advertising bias.
satyrnein 6y ago
I'm not sure a monthly roundup is a drop-in replacement. Presumably that could exist now, but isn't as effective for whatever reason. On the other point, subsidizing drugs for those who need them is a perfectly reasonable goal. It just seemed to me (incorrectly, it appears) like you were suggesting this cost shifting lowers the total cost.

refurb 6y ago

If you want to know why DTC is allowed in the US, you should read the FDA studies on it. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-direct-consumer-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-... The FDA identified several benefits of DTC ads.

DougWebb 6y ago
That article provides pretty strong evidence that DTC ads, overall, are bad for patients: 58 percent [of physicians surveyed] agreed strongly that DTC ads make the drugs seem better than they really are. Physicians thought the ads did not convey information about risks and benefits equally well. Seventy-eight percent of physicians believe their patients understand the possible benefits of the drug very well or somewhat, compared to 40 percent who believe their patients understand the possible risks, and 65 percent believe DTC ads confuse patients about the relative risks and benefits of prescription drugs. In addition, about 75 percent of physicians surveyed believed that DTC ads cause patients to think that the drug works better than it does, and many physicians felt some pressure to prescribe something when patients mentioned DTC ads. Eight percent of physicians said they felt very pressured to prescribe the specific brand-name drug when asked. Doctors believe that patients understand that they need to consult a health care professional about appropriate treatment. Eighty-two percent responded either "very well" or "somewhat" when asked whether they believe that their patients understand that only a doctor can decide whether a drug is right for them. Note the last point means that 18% of the doctors believed that their patients thought they knew better than the doctor about whether or not a drug is right for them. The few positive aspects, about patients being better informed about drug therapies that might help them, could be solved by making the monthly journal info I described available online. People go to Google and type in their symptoms and/or the name of their disease if they know it, and end up on sites like drugs.com and webmd.com. If Google were indexing the journal I described, and those other sites pulled from it too (publishing license should allow that, as it would be publicly funded), then patients would see all of the good information about the drugs, without the advertising bias.

satyrnein 6y ago

I'm not sure a monthly roundup is a drop-in replacement. Presumably that could exist now, but isn't as effective for whatever reason. On the other point, subsidizing drugs for those who need them is a perfectly reasonable goal. It just seemed to me (incorrectly, it appears) like you were suggesting this cost shifting lowers the total cost.