Mother Jones Examines Pros and Cons of Drug Advertising

This month's Mother Jones examines the pros and cons of the proliferation of direct-to-consumer advertising by drugmakers. The magazine reports that the trend has resulted in consumers being more educated about illnesses and medications, but has also raised questions about the cost and safety of certain drugs. In 1997, the FDA loosened its rules on pharmaceutical advertising, allowing companies to market drugs more easily on television. As a result, DTC television advertising has increased exponentially since the rule change: Last year, the industry spent $1.7 billion on such advertising, more than double what it spent in 1998. Proponents of the new policy "say it creates a more informed patient because viewers see the ads, then have an intelligent give and take with a doctor." There is also a secondary benefit of unveiling illnesses in patients who otherwise might never have even visited a doctor without the prompt of advertising. For example, according to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, more than 200,000 of every million men who have requested Viagra from a doctor have been diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease. Critics of DTC, however, say the new trend "creates more business for pharmaceutical companies by encouraging patients to seek out expensive, potentially dangerous drugs that they -- and too often their doctors -- know little about." When patients, prompted by ads, request specific drugs that they may or may not need, physicians often comply with these requests, leading to greater overall prescription drug costs. Mother Jones reports that the increase in DTC ads has led also to more prescriptions being obtained over the Internet -- often without a doctor's recommendation (Belkin, Mother Jones, April 2001).