Bad Medicine...Part 2

[peter eldergill]

I believe the rules are if you say what the drug does you have to include the potential side effects. If you don't say what it does, you can leave out the side effect list. Listing side effects on drug commercials has nothing to do with litigation, unless you consider a complaint from the FDA litigation.

I'm referring to Canadian commercials...here if you name the drug, you're not allowed to say what the drug does. It also means that we aren't innundated with too many drug commercials. Rules in the US are different I guess

Pete

[sarongsong]

I'm referring to Canadian commercials..we aren't innundated with too many drug commercials...

Lucky you---it seemed they were especially prevalent in the US last week (Thanksgiving), prompting one to wonder just how much advertising costs contribute to our bloated prescription drug prices.

[TriangleMan]

Lucky you---it seemed they were especially prevalent in the US last week (Thanksgiving), prompting one to wonder just how much advertising costs contribute to our bloated prescription drug prices.

No need to wonder, such information is available from the SEC filings of publicly-traded US pharmaceutical companies.

For example, from Pfizer

Advertising expenses totaled approximately $3,490 million in 2004, $2,936 million in 2003 and $2,298 million in 2002.

Revenue for 2004 was $52,516 million and in 2003 was $44,736 million, so advertising costs were 6.64% of revenue in 2004 and 6.56% in 2003.

Bear in mind that while the precentage isn't high 3.5 billion dollars is a heck of a lot of advertising.

[peter eldergill]

I've been told that $1000 of the price of a new car is for advertising...

Pete

[sarongsong]

Thanks for finding that, TriangleMan---and that's just one company's outlay---yikes!

[LurchGS]

I've been told that $1000 of the price of a new car is for advertising...

Pete

hrm... I'd heard 10%... but I'm too lazy (and busy this afternoon) to see what I can dig up on it

[TriangleMan]

Thanks for finding that, TriangleMan---and that's just one company's outlay---yikes!

And it grew by $500 million in just one year. The increase is likely due to the TV ads. The ads are probably working - that is why all of the pharmaceuticals are spending $$$ to fill the airwaves with them.

[sarongsong]

October 23, 2006
America's health care system is surviving on the good will of doctors who are caring for patients despite below-cost government payments, says the American Medical Association's president. "If we looked at this from a business standpoint, it makes no sense," Dr. William Plested III said... Medicare plans to cut payments to doctors by about 40 percent over nine years, starting Jan. 1, while the cost of providing care is estimated to increase about 20 percent... Star-Bulletin

Strange days, indeed.

[farmerjumperdon]

Anybody remember The Onion headline, . . .

Local Man To Ask His Doctor About Xenical, Propecia, Claritin, Paxil, Drixoral, Lipitor, Tavist-D

Would have been truly black humor had they listed Vioxx.

Our on-site head of pharmacy programs (a pharmacist) says you should definitely not ask your doctor about the latest drug advertised on TV. Citing recent headline-grabbing drug deaths as evidence he says trials are too easy.

That shocked me because we always hear that the lead time, the trials and tribulations of getting drugs approved is made to sound like hurculean obstacles to overcome. He says the trials are weak because the test populations are allowed to be too small and the number of successful trials too few. He says wait until the drug has been on the market for 2 or 3 years - that the problems missed in the trial process become evident by then. He said a lethal side effect that might kill one in a thousand can easily slip through the trials.

He has a bunch of tips I'd never heard of. One that really caught my attention is that you should know the effective dose/lethal dose ratio of any drug you are taking; especially since there is a good chunk of the population that operates on a more is better mentality. I would never have thought to ask that.

[Swift]

October 23, 2006
America's health care system is surviving on the good will of doctors who are caring for patients despite below-cost government payments, says the American Medical Association's president. "If we looked at this from a business standpoint, it makes no sense," Dr. William Plested III said... Medicare plans to cut payments to doctors by about 40 percent over nine years, starting Jan. 1, while the cost of providing care is estimated to increase about 20 percent... Star-Bulletin

Strange days, indeed.

I'm sorry to say, but this is nothing new. My wife worked in administration of a major Cleveland hospital for many years and this has gone on a long time. What Medicare pays out for patient care has little to do with what hospitals or doctors are actually spending and individual states or the hospitals themselves have to make up the rest. This is why a lot of small hospitals, at least around here, have gone out of business.

[Gillianren]

I know it's hugely difficult to find medical care around here that takes my state medical coupons. There really aren't many who provide mental health care.