Big Pharma vs. John Q. Public

One doesn’t have to watch much TV or read very many magazines to realize that the American public is being bombarded by prescription drug ads. While perhaps good for the media and drug companies, this is not a good thing for the public.

The AMA has officially taken a position against such ads, as they believe that they create customer demand for new and more expensive drugs. These ads also provoke a climate of “self diagnosis,” creating an additional hurdle for the medical professional, “No, Mrs. Brown, you do not have ...”

Drug advertising used to be limited and aimed at doctors. No more. Of the top 10 Big Pharma companies, only one, Roche, spends more money on research and development than marketing and sales, and J&J spends more than twice as much.

These ads provide little benefit to the consumer, and they do raise the costs of drugs.

Certainly, the consumer has the right to know which drugs are available, their efficiency and cost, and their side effects. A better alternative would be to have an independently run website listing this data for all approved drugs, including their generic equivalents. Such a site could also describe drugs under evaluation and provide a listing of drug trials, rules for participation, etc.

If we are ever to provide health care for all, we will need to reduce costs. The elimination of prescription drug advertising is one step worth taking, along with measures to ensure that these savings translate into lower consumer costs.

This story was originally published June 5, 2017 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Big Pharma vs. John Q. Public."