5 ms·

> Between 1997 and 2016, medical marketing increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion (Schwartz and Woloshin 2019). Prescription drug advertising was a key driver of

> Between 1997 and 2016, medical marketing increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion (Schwartz and Woloshin 2019). Prescription drug advertising was a key driver of this expansion, with 4.6 million advertisements (including 663,000 TV commercials) amounting to $6 billion spent in 2016 alone (Schwartz and Woloshin 2019). I'm reading this thread as I see at least one prescription drug advertisement every commercial break while watching Sunday football in the US. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30620375/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30620375/ Here's an interesting bit from the study itself: > From 1997 through 2016, the number of consumer and professional drug promotional materials that companies submitted for FDA review increased from 34 182 to 97 252, while FDA violation letters for misleading drug marketing decreased from 156 to 11. Since 1997, 103 financial settlements between drug companies and federal and state governments resulted in more than $11 billion in fines for off-label or deceptive marketing practices. Plenty of ads for drugs and limited regulation oversight. How does this compare to more regulated countries?

InSteady 3y ago
>while FDA violation letters for misleading drug marketing decreased from 156 to 11. As an interesting aside, it is my understanding that legislation is often written by lobbyists and industry groups rather than by our elected officials and their staffers, especially with legislation that relates to large and complex industries/institutions. The general concept is that politicians and their staff are more generalists and technocrats of the political process so they lack the knowledge, time, resources, and expertise to craft complex legal frameworks. Certainly problematic, but it's kind of how our system has evolved to work. Ok. On top of that, there are significant cases ahead facing our conservative supreme court that aim to "reign in" federal regulatory agencies, for instance by giving judges much more power to undermine their interpretation and enforcement of federal law [0]. Namely, consumer protection and finance agencies in the executive branch. Although the EPA tends to draw the most ire from conservative judges, the FDA also falls into this category. Perhaps the FDA will skirt some of this scrutiny by such policies as reducing the issuance of violation letters for misleading marketing by 93% over a 20 year stretch, despite a significant growth in the amount and kinds of advertising taking place during the same period. Of course it's possible that medical marketing has simply become that much more ethical during this time, all but eliminating the need for the issuance of violation letters. However, if it is true that the FDA has effectively clamped down on misleading marketing, this now represents a significant financial incentive to try and have much of that progress to be undone by industry-friendly judges as well as those who oppose federal regulation on ideological grounds, since they would have far more leeway to defang the FDA should to be so inclined. Anyway, those situations - medical industry writing laws for themselves and federal regulators losing their teeth - represent two major checks in our system that are at risk of being substantially compromised when it comes to oversight of medical marketing for the good of individual consumers and the wellbeing of our nation. [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/federal-agency-powers-crosshairs-us-supreme-court-2023-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/federal-agency-powers-crosshai...

InSteady 3y ago

>while FDA violation letters for misleading drug marketing decreased from 156 to 11. As an interesting aside, it is my understanding that legislation is often written by lobbyists and industry groups rather than by our elected officials and their staffers, especially with legislation that relates to large and complex industries/institutions. The general concept is that politicians and their staff are more generalists and technocrats of the political process so they lack the knowledge, time, resources, and expertise to craft complex legal frameworks. Certainly problematic, but it's kind of how our system has evolved to work. Ok. On top of that, there are significant cases ahead facing our conservative supreme court that aim to "reign in" federal regulatory agencies, for instance by giving judges much more power to undermine their interpretation and enforcement of federal law [0]. Namely, consumer protection and finance agencies in the executive branch. Although the EPA tends to draw the most ire from conservative judges, the FDA also falls into this category. Perhaps the FDA will skirt some of this scrutiny by such policies as reducing the issuance of violation letters for misleading marketing by 93% over a 20 year stretch, despite a significant growth in the amount and kinds of advertising taking place during the same period. Of course it's possible that medical marketing has simply become that much more ethical during this time, all but eliminating the need for the issuance of violation letters. However, if it is true that the FDA has effectively clamped down on misleading marketing, this now represents a significant financial incentive to try and have much of that progress to be undone by industry-friendly judges as well as those who oppose federal regulation on ideological grounds, since they would have far more leeway to defang the FDA should to be so inclined. Anyway, those situations - medical industry writing laws for themselves and federal regulators losing their teeth - represent two major checks in our system that are at risk of being substantially compromised when it comes to oversight of medical marketing for the good of individual consumers and the wellbeing of our nation. [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/federal-agency-powers-crosshairs-us-supreme-court-2023-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/federal-agency-powers-crosshai...