In New York Times, Two Physicians Discuss Pros, Cons of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
The New York Times today asks, "Are direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements confusing to patients?" To answer, the paper prints excerpts of interviews with two physicians who hold opposite views: Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, associate professor at Emory University, and Dr. Richard Dolinar of Phoenix-based Endocrinology Associates.
Ads are Confusing
Fryhofer says that DTC ads are confusing, noting that the "sole purpose" of direct-to-consumer advertising is to "brand and sell products, not patient education." She argues that the "branding ads paint a rosy picture," giving patients an unrealistic expectation of what a medicine can do or convincing patients they need a drug that is actually unnecessary. Fryhofer adds that while it is "great to get drug information to consumers," the information must be "balanced." The FDA's regulatory process for DTC ads is "much too lenient," she says, adding that it is "not too late" for the FDA to rein advertising back in, especially since the "extremely expensive practice" raises drug prices. She concludes, "We want patients to receive the best products for them, not just the most heavily advertised products."
Ads are Helpful
Dolinar holds a different viewpoint, saying that direct-to-consumer advertisements are not confusing and that "[a]n educated patient is an easier patient to treat." He argues that DTC ads can give doctors more time to "ge[t] acquainted" with patients and to provide care because patients are "ready to start talking about the latest ... treatment." Dolinar says that the ads can make patients aware of beneficial drugs that their insurance plan might not cover, and adds that if ads sometimes prompt patients to ask for inappropriate treatments, "I will say so. That's not a problem." He concludes, "I think more patients are coming in for treatment just to see if a drug they have seen advertised might help them with a problem. That's good" (Scott, New York Times, 8/21).