Prescription Drug Advertising Is Good for All of Us
By Richard E. Ralston
June 16, 2005
When you see a commercial for a new car, a new movie, or a new
brand of breakfast cereal it’s because the manufacturers of those
products want to incur as much advertising expense as possible so
they can pass the cost along to you. Then you can’t afford to buy
their product. Isn’t that what they teach in Business 101 as the
best way to make big profits? Of course not.
When you see a commercial for a new car, a new movie, or a new
brand of breakfast cereal it’s because the manufacturers of those
products want to incur as much advertising expense as possible so
they can pass the cost along to you. Then you can’t afford to buy
their product. Isn’t that what they teach in Business 101 as the
best way to make big profits? Of course not.
In order to recover the cost of developing and manufacturing a
new product, it must be able to find its “market”—those customers
who think the product provides a value greater to them than it’s
price. Manufacturers need to find the optimal number of customers
for a new product through advertising. This allows them to sell the
product at a lower unit price.
Critics of the pharmaceutical industry demonstrate willful
ignorance of the basic principles of economics and marketing. They
say firms that develop breakthrough drugs after investing billions
of dollars in research are not to be commended but
persecuted—because they won’t keep quiet about them. Those who
attack drug advertising are just looking for an excuse to impose
government regulation and price controls. They pretend ignorance of
marketing because they want to destroy individual choice and free
markets, and replace them with government micro-management of all
aspects of health care. They are also conveniently ignorant of other
principles, such as “freedom of speech.”
Effective advertising of new drugs provides obvious benefits.
Most importantly, it informs those with medical conditions about new
treatments (including those who may have given up on getting
relief). It may motivate them to discuss the condition with a
physician for the first time, creating an opportunity for the
physician to undertake testing and make a correct diagnosis. The
physician may prescribe another medication better suited to the
patient’s needs. Or, the physician’s knowledge of the condition’s
serious consequences may alter the treatment course instead of just
addressing the symptoms reported by the patient.
Critics maintain that it would be better if none of this came
about, rather than allow a patient to ask for a drug by name. A
patient who rejects the treatment recommend by his doctor to hold
out for something he’s seen on TV is foolish. A good doctor will
prescribe something more appropriate if that is called for. Keeping
patients barefoot and ignorant is not the solution. Despite the
tireless efforts of pharmaceutical salesmen, physicians in general
practice or internal medicine can’t possibly keep up with all the
features of the many new drugs and how they might apply to every
patient. Why shouldn’t those who feel the pain be on the lookout for
new remedies?
Those who want to eliminate drug advertising, or tax it, or use
it as an excuse to impose controls want to eliminate, tax, and
control the flow of information to consumers—information far more
important than a new light beer.
You’d think that the last group that would want to eliminate
advertising is politicians. Yet Senators Wyden and Sununu have
proposed bi-partisan legislation to cut the price that the
government pays for some of the drugs it gives away. Not all drugs,
just the drugs that advertise to consumers. Price controls are
destructive enough, but cutting the price just for the people who
get them for free is ridiculous. These Senators obviously don’t know
or care about the impact this legislation will have on paying
customers in the marketplace.
When you see a commercial for a new drug it offers the potential
to make somebody feel better. Let’s leave those commercials and the
drug companies alone. What would really make us all feel better is
less advertising urging us to elect politicians who want to control
our lives.
Richard E. Ralston is Executive Director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.
Copyright © 2005 Americans for Free Choice in Medicine. All rights reserved.
For reprint permission, contact AFCM.
|
Print Page
E-mail Page