New Zealand and the United States are the one high-income countries that allow unrestricted direct-to-consumer advertising of brand-name drugs, including the name of the drug and the condition for which it’s prescribed.
Our last evaluation examines why most other countries ban this controversial practice. We review evidence that direct advertising can result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatments, causing potential harm and better health care costs.
Direct advertising of prescription drugs, mainly through television and print, developed within the USA and New Zealand within the Nineteen Nineties when no recent laws or specific ban was introduced.
After three many years, New Zealand’s legal vacuum modified last yr when the previous government formalised the legality of direct mail advertising in a brand new law. Therapeutic Products Act. The move got here as a surprise to many, given the Labour Party historical opposition to practice.
The law would come into force in July 2023. However, one of the election guarantees of the present coalition government was to reject it, partly because of concerns in regards to the regulation of natural and other low-risk health products.
Government he seems involved to repeal the law. But up to now there isn’t a indication of what regulatory framework would replace it. And it’s unclear whether Health Minister Shane Reti will renew his efforts to oppose a ban on the practice.
Why Pharmaceutical Companies Like Direct Advertising
Many medications for common conditions can be found in supermarkets or pharmacies and not using a prescription. They often treat milder conditions and are relatively easy to make use of safely.
Other medicines are intended only on prescription because their use carries a major risk of harm, especially if used incorrectly. That is why direct advertising for prescription drugs typically urges consumers to “ask your doctor if this is right for you.”
Direct mail is effective in promoting the prescription of branded and typically expensive drugs. It is a key marketing strategy of the pharmaceutical industry, especially within the United States, where billions are spent per yr for this kind of advertising.
Because of its effectiveness, corporations have lobbied to expand direct-to-consumer advertising to other countries, including the European Union. Health authorities have up to now successfully opposed it because of concerns in regards to the associated risks to public health and increased healthcare costs.
An exception is Canada, which introduced partial direct advertising in 2001 in response to industry pressure. This allowed corporations to run “reminder ads” that mention the name of a drug but not the condition it’s used for.
Getty photos
Although most studies on direct advertising deal with high-income countries, there may be evidence that the practice also occurs in low- and middle-income countries, even whether it is technically illegal.
A major example is documented in Sri Lanka in 2000, when a pharmaceutical company convinced a national medical association to co-sponsor anti-obesity ads in newspapers. It then encouraged individuals who responded to the ads to ask their doctors a few prescription-only weight-loss drug.
In Turkey, widespread advertising of a prescription drug that helps people quit smoking has led to the drug’s license being suspended. Turkish doctors have also identified the upper risk of damage related to low levels of education and ineffective enforcement of prescription-only drug regulations in Turkey and other developing countries.
Other countries resist direct advertising
The almost universal ban on direct advertising is seen as a health protection measure, especially for brand spanking new drugs introduced to the market.
IN study of 109 recent drugs Although the drug is approved within the U.S., most pre-marketing clinical trials treated fewer than 500 patients with it — too few to detect rare but significant unwanted side effects.
More generally, drug-related harm is a typical but preventable cause of emergency room visits and hospitalizations. This justifies treating prescription drugs otherwise, including how they’re advertised.
This global withdrawal arthritis drug Vioxx (rofecoxib), one of essentially the most heavily advertised drugs in its five years in the marketplace, has raised safety concerns. Vioxx increased the danger of heart attacks, however the manufacturer continued to advertise the drug to the general public within the U.S. and New Zealand long after internal company documents indicated an increased risk of death.
A ban would help optimize healthcare
Direct advertising affects the doctor-patient relationship. It causes patients to hunt down medications that they can not obtain unless their doctor agrees to put in writing a prescription. The impact includes time spent discussing the goal condition, which can or may not require medical intervention, and the treatment advertised, which can or may not reflect best practice.
Strong evidence now shows that direct advertising can result in unnecessary, inappropriate and sometimes harmful prescribing. The practice may encourage patients to self-diagnose or misinterpret symptoms, contributing to unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatment.
Although direct advertising may encourage patients to go to physicians with whom they’ve not previously reported symptoms and discuss treatment options, physicians generally view such a practice as an undesirable distraction from their clinical work.
Professional bodies AND consumer groups in New Zealand and other countries have expressed strong opposition to direct advertising.
However, the industrial success of direct advertising has prompted vigorous industry efforts to defend, develop and expand the practice. The pending repeal of the New Zealand Therapeutic Goods Act provides a timely opportunity to deal with the legality of direct advertising of prescription drugs.
The query stays whether the federal government will be convinced by the available evidence that banning direct advertising will help reduce healthcare spending and improve public health by reducing over-diagnosis, unnecessary treatments and the harm they may cause.