9 ms·

In France, they fixed this by not allowing doctors or drugs to advertise. One of the best decisions ever, for a lot of reasons: you cut care cost, and you avoid

In France, they fixed this by not allowing doctors or drugs to advertise. One of the best decisions ever, for a lot of reasons: you cut care cost, and you avoid that kind of third party profiteering.

techntoke 6y ago
This sounds like a great idea for many sectors.
luckylion 6y ago
That moves the money to be spent on SEO instead of going directly to Google, doesn't it? It's less predictable, but unless you do it, you won't be seen, ever, anywhere, by anyone.
- anoncake 6y ago
  I don't know about France, but in Germany, the vast majority of doctors don't even have a website to SEO. People manage to find them just fine anyway.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I'm in Germany, every doctor I know has a website. Maybe it varies by region? Some have simple sites, most have marketing-sites, plenty with keyword domains.
  - stingraycharles 6y ago
    Over here in The Netherlands as well. It’s almost as if people forgot that there are directories of medical professionals you can consult!
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > That moves the money to be spent on SEO instead of going directly to Google, doesn't it? No. In most countries doctors and drugs don't need any SEO, because the doctor is provided by the health service, and the doctor picks the drugs based on clinical indication.
  - antihero 6y ago
    For MH it's a bit more complicated here in the UK getting therapy through NHS can take months/years.Also, with MH you need to find someone you like and can trust. Most people I know go private (out of pocket, it's about £20-80 per session in London so on average about £200/mo). Discovery is done through word of mouth or looking at various schools of therapy and shopping about to find a therapist that works for you.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      How long can you get with a private psychiatrist in London for £20? Doesn't seem like a lot of money.
    - mtalantikite 6y ago
      Here in NYC my out of pocket therapy costs $175 per 45-min session, which is lower than what my therapist charges new clients. It’s a pretty normal rate, many of my friends in therapy pay between $175-225 per session. Most therapists here don’t accept insurance, many insurance plans don’t cover mental health, and government programs don’t cover it at all. £20-80 per session sadly sounds like a deal here in the US.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        I thought MH coverage was one of the essential services under Obamacare?
        mtalantikite 6y ago
        It is, but it varies state to state and the coverage generally isn’t great. You have to hit your deductible before coverage starts and then after that it’s usually a 50% coverage. So if you’re lucky enough to find a therapist that takes insurance, you’re still paying a lot out of pocket. I just searched what it’d cost me here in NYC to purchase and go through the insurance my therapist does take (in-network): The plan costs about $650/month and I’d have to hit a $5,500 deductible before mental health coverage kicks in. Then it’s a 50% coverage after that. I’d pay about $6700 out of pocket with insurance versus about $7350 without it. This doesn’t include the $7800 I’d have to pay for the plan itself. I wouldn’t really call that a mental health benefit, it’s easier to just find a therapist you like and just figure out a way to pay for it if you can. Most people can’t and it’s a shame because good therapy is transformative. My life is so much better because of it.
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
Advertising is how a free-market economy disseminates information about new products and services. How does France solve this?
- tpm 6y ago
  Patients are not customers for drugs and drug companies, therefore drug companies should not advertise to patients. Patients are to be given therapies, to be helped and in the best cases cured. Not to be sold drugs seen in advertisements. Medicine is not a free-market economy sector in Europe. Doctors should educate themselves about new therapies and use them when appropriate.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Not sure why you're getting downvoted as this is the real answer. In countries other than America, healthcare is not for profit. It's not to maximize gains, it's to maximize care and allocate available resources for the public good. Doctors are the ones who prescribe. Imagine: doctors don't even know what a drug costs, and nether do patients. The customers are government health systems, who study the value of a drug, negotiate prices and make it available iff the negotiated price is less than the value it provides. Its true facts that in Europe, healthcare is not a free market. This is how Canada works too. Patients receive care as needed and don't need to be advertised to because they're not the customers.
    - com2kid 6y ago
      Because patients ARE the customer. Drug companies constantly work to make drugs easier to take (long acting forms, or even once a month injections) and have fewer side effects. ADHD meds are a great example. In America long lasting ADHD meds with fewer side effects were available for literal decades before they were available in certain EU countries. Modern drug delivery systems that can slowly dose a medicine over 12 hours (!!!) are the direct result of pharmaceutical companies working to improve QoL for the patient. The doctor, and especially the healthcare system, don't consider the patient's UX to be of that much importance. This is analogous to having the CTO make a software purchase VS giving user's input. Should the IT directors and CTO have a majority of the say? Of course. But the end users must be considered or you end up with painful to use software.
zackmorris 6y ago
Looks like there never was a federal law against drug ads in the US. I don't remember seeing any prescription drug ads until maybe the late 80s to mid 90s, when male pattern baldness and ED ads became prolific, starting us down the path towards remedies for diseases of affluence swallowing R&D funding: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/background-drug-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/back... I've been growing more concerned lately that today's youth might not be aware that things really were better just a few decades ago. I'm seeing a lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize behavior by big business that I consider indefensible. Or to rephrase, I think that youth today do know that they are getting screwed, but for whatever reason, they often place blame on the wrong culprits. If we want to get back to the glory days, I feel that we need to revisit fundamental American values like truth, justice, civics, etc etc etc. Or we can like, have even more billionaires and regulatory capture by multinational corporations taking us on an arrow's trajectory towards fascism. I can't even believe I have to write this, but that's how much the US has changed since I was young.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  I think what happened in the past with drug and doctor ads is they "red-tided" themselves in the space by making themselves known as the source of disreputable patent medicine quacks such that advertising was shameful. The public, even with the worse transparency learned that they just didn't work. Like how infomercial products are often synonymous with overpriced and/or not working. Part of why we aren't seeing that reoccur is that while expensive there is FDA regulation and the drugs more or less work even if there may be rightful concerns about side effects. They made sure they actually work so they rake in way more money than any small time quack. Part of the issue with any return to glory days movement is that tradition is fundamentally a cargo-culted lie via induction. Traditions never were first done because they were tradition. The hard truth is the rot has always been there.
  - fhsm 6y ago
    I wouldn’t merge physicians and pharmaceuticals in a conversation about ads. Ads for the former remain rare in my experience. Supply is tight (imagine an ad to join a 10 month waiting list) and insurance coverage is the critical entry point in searches for a new provider ( that a mental health provider is buying ads is testament to the continued lack of mental health parity / vibrant cash market there ). Pharma ads are older than the FDA itself which practically grew out of the snake oil market. What many people experience as the explosion in pharma ads is really a broadcast explosion. FDA guidance around balanced reporting of side effects changed in the late 90s such that the brief “this may kill you” was newly possible. Lots written about this, eg: https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjppm.21.2.174.17580 https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjppm.21.2.174.17580
rossjudson 6y ago
+1000. I work for Google, but I'm not American. I cannot understand why pharmaceutical companies are allowed to advertise medications. 1. patient sees ad for drug promising them a normal life full of beer and children, and ample slightly serious sport/exercise. 2. patient calls doctor and excitedly informs doctor about awesome new life changing drug. 3. doctor tells patient why drug is not appropriate. 4. patient gets revenge for crushed dreams by leaving horrible reviews for doctor everywhere they can. 5. oh right it's a business, society tells the doctor, not health care. 6. doctor accepts stupid reality, and prescribes medication.

In France, they fixed this by not allowing doctors or drugs to advertise. One of the best decisions ever, for a lot of reasons: you cut care cost, and you avoid that kind of third party profiteering.

techntoke 6y ago

This sounds like a great idea for many sectors.

luckylion 6y ago

That moves the money to be spent on SEO instead of going directly to Google, doesn't it? It's less predictable, but unless you do it, you won't be seen, ever, anywhere, by anyone.

anoncake 6y ago
I don't know about France, but in Germany, the vast majority of doctors don't even have a website to SEO. People manage to find them just fine anyway.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I'm in Germany, every doctor I know has a website. Maybe it varies by region? Some have simple sites, most have marketing-sites, plenty with keyword domains.
- stingraycharles 6y ago
  Over here in The Netherlands as well. It’s almost as if people forgot that there are directories of medical professionals you can consult!
chrisseaton 6y ago
> That moves the money to be spent on SEO instead of going directly to Google, doesn't it? No. In most countries doctors and drugs don't need any SEO, because the doctor is provided by the health service, and the doctor picks the drugs based on clinical indication.
- antihero 6y ago
  For MH it's a bit more complicated here in the UK getting therapy through NHS can take months/years.Also, with MH you need to find someone you like and can trust. Most people I know go private (out of pocket, it's about £20-80 per session in London so on average about £200/mo). Discovery is done through word of mouth or looking at various schools of therapy and shopping about to find a therapist that works for you.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    How long can you get with a private psychiatrist in London for £20? Doesn't seem like a lot of money.
  - mtalantikite 6y ago
    Here in NYC my out of pocket therapy costs $175 per 45-min session, which is lower than what my therapist charges new clients. It’s a pretty normal rate, many of my friends in therapy pay between $175-225 per session. Most therapists here don’t accept insurance, many insurance plans don’t cover mental health, and government programs don’t cover it at all. £20-80 per session sadly sounds like a deal here in the US.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      I thought MH coverage was one of the essential services under Obamacare?
      - mtalantikite 6y ago
        It is, but it varies state to state and the coverage generally isn’t great. You have to hit your deductible before coverage starts and then after that it’s usually a 50% coverage. So if you’re lucky enough to find a therapist that takes insurance, you’re still paying a lot out of pocket. I just searched what it’d cost me here in NYC to purchase and go through the insurance my therapist does take (in-network): The plan costs about $650/month and I’d have to hit a $5,500 deductible before mental health coverage kicks in. Then it’s a 50% coverage after that. I’d pay about $6700 out of pocket with insurance versus about $7350 without it. This doesn’t include the $7800 I’d have to pay for the plan itself. I wouldn’t really call that a mental health benefit, it’s easier to just find a therapist you like and just figure out a way to pay for it if you can. Most people can’t and it’s a shame because good therapy is transformative. My life is so much better because of it.

KKKKkkkk1 6y ago

Advertising is how a free-market economy disseminates information about new products and services. How does France solve this?

tpm 6y ago
Patients are not customers for drugs and drug companies, therefore drug companies should not advertise to patients. Patients are to be given therapies, to be helped and in the best cases cured. Not to be sold drugs seen in advertisements. Medicine is not a free-market economy sector in Europe. Doctors should educate themselves about new therapies and use them when appropriate.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted as this is the real answer. In countries other than America, healthcare is not for profit. It's not to maximize gains, it's to maximize care and allocate available resources for the public good. Doctors are the ones who prescribe. Imagine: doctors don't even know what a drug costs, and nether do patients. The customers are government health systems, who study the value of a drug, negotiate prices and make it available iff the negotiated price is less than the value it provides. Its true facts that in Europe, healthcare is not a free market. This is how Canada works too. Patients receive care as needed and don't need to be advertised to because they're not the customers.
  - com2kid 6y ago
    Because patients ARE the customer. Drug companies constantly work to make drugs easier to take (long acting forms, or even once a month injections) and have fewer side effects. ADHD meds are a great example. In America long lasting ADHD meds with fewer side effects were available for literal decades before they were available in certain EU countries. Modern drug delivery systems that can slowly dose a medicine over 12 hours (!!!) are the direct result of pharmaceutical companies working to improve QoL for the patient. The doctor, and especially the healthcare system, don't consider the patient's UX to be of that much importance. This is analogous to having the CTO make a software purchase VS giving user's input. Should the IT directors and CTO have a majority of the say? Of course. But the end users must be considered or you end up with painful to use software.

zackmorris 6y ago

Looks like there never was a federal law against drug ads in the US. I don't remember seeing any prescription drug ads until maybe the late 80s to mid 90s, when male pattern baldness and ED ads became prolific, starting us down the path towards remedies for diseases of affluence swallowing R&D funding: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/background-drug-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/back... I've been growing more concerned lately that today's youth might not be aware that things really were better just a few decades ago. I'm seeing a lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize behavior by big business that I consider indefensible. Or to rephrase, I think that youth today do know that they are getting screwed, but for whatever reason, they often place blame on the wrong culprits. If we want to get back to the glory days, I feel that we need to revisit fundamental American values like truth, justice, civics, etc etc etc. Or we can like, have even more billionaires and regulatory capture by multinational corporations taking us on an arrow's trajectory towards fascism. I can't even believe I have to write this, but that's how much the US has changed since I was young.

Nasrudith 6y ago
I think what happened in the past with drug and doctor ads is they "red-tided" themselves in the space by making themselves known as the source of disreputable patent medicine quacks such that advertising was shameful. The public, even with the worse transparency learned that they just didn't work. Like how infomercial products are often synonymous with overpriced and/or not working. Part of why we aren't seeing that reoccur is that while expensive there is FDA regulation and the drugs more or less work even if there may be rightful concerns about side effects. They made sure they actually work so they rake in way more money than any small time quack. Part of the issue with any return to glory days movement is that tradition is fundamentally a cargo-culted lie via induction. Traditions never were first done because they were tradition. The hard truth is the rot has always been there.
- fhsm 6y ago
  I wouldn’t merge physicians and pharmaceuticals in a conversation about ads. Ads for the former remain rare in my experience. Supply is tight (imagine an ad to join a 10 month waiting list) and insurance coverage is the critical entry point in searches for a new provider ( that a mental health provider is buying ads is testament to the continued lack of mental health parity / vibrant cash market there ). Pharma ads are older than the FDA itself which practically grew out of the snake oil market. What many people experience as the explosion in pharma ads is really a broadcast explosion. FDA guidance around balanced reporting of side effects changed in the late 90s such that the brief “this may kill you” was newly possible. Lots written about this, eg: https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjppm.21.2.174.17580 https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjppm.21.2.174.17580

rossjudson 6y ago

+1000. I work for Google, but I'm not American. I cannot understand why pharmaceutical companies are allowed to advertise medications. 1. patient sees ad for drug promising them a normal life full of beer and children, and ample slightly serious sport/exercise. 2. patient calls doctor and excitedly informs doctor about awesome new life changing drug. 3. doctor tells patient why drug is not appropriate. 4. patient gets revenge for crushed dreams by leaving horrible reviews for doctor everywhere they can. 5. oh right it's a business, society tells the doctor, not health care. 6. doctor accepts stupid reality, and prescribes medication.