Drug Co TV Ads - Benefits outweigh the risks?

[aja8888]

Simple - when the risk of the downside is offset by the expected gain on the upside.

No different from just about everything we do every day. Should I drive to town to get groceries - the downside is I might get killed in a car accident. Should I eat the groceries - the downside is they may contain salmonella, or e-coli, or some other harmful thing. Should I get out of bed.... and so on.

-ERD50

It's not worth it when one of the downside effects is possibly death.

 

[ziggy29]

DW and I joke about that in all those drug commercials. When the announcer finally gets to the end of the litany of possible side effects, we say "...and death."

 

[HFWR]

DW and I joke about that in all those drug commercials. When the announcer finally gets to the end of the litany of possible side effects, we say "...and death."

If you have died from taking whatchamofokin, call now...

 

[ziggy29]

If you have died from taking whatchamofokin, call now...

Yeah, that's the other kind of commercial that drives me nuts -- the drug ads and the personal injury lawyer ads. The latter are all over daytime over-the-air TV. I guess they figure they want to market to people who are less likely to have a job and looking for jackpot justice...

 

[aaronc879]

It's not worth it when one of the downside effects is possibly death.

That's not necessarily true. A lot of drugs had human deaths at some stage of clinical testing. It may have been a very rare allergic reaction or the person may have already had his health compromised. If the drug is proven to be effective then it very well may out way the very small risk of death. Pharmaceutical drugs are the main reason people are living longer and with less health problems. I know many people who take arthritis medications or heart medications who are very much better off because of them even though they could have bad side effects.

 

[ERD50]

It's not worth it when one of the downside effects is possibly death.

Sure it is (at least in many cases).

Consider - a drug to treat a debilitating disease that has a 99% chance of a dramatic improvement. But a 1 in 1 million chance of death.

So you are saying you don't go grocery shopping? There are some 40,000 fatal car accidents a year, and many more serious injuries. That's a pretty significant downside.

Or even eat, for that matter?

CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

Wow, I thought the "death as a side effect" comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be taken so literally. But what do I know?

 

[ERD50]

Wow, I thought the "death as a side effect" comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be taken so literally. But what do I know?

Death can be a side effect of some medicines. Check this:

Death following penicillin injection. Report of three cases. - PubMed - NCBI

Death following penicillin injection. Report of three cases.

So no one should take penicillin due to the risk of death?

But the same applies to all the side effects. You have to weigh the good versus the bad, and proportion of each.

-ERD50

 

[athena53]

If you have died from taking whatchamofokin, call now...

I like the part of the drug commercials warning, "Don't take whatchamafokin if you are allergic to whatchamafokin..."

Ummm. how would I know?

 

[MRG]

It's not worth it when one of the downside effects is possibly death.

Ever go out to eat? Mishandled food can kill you. I spent 3 days hospitalized due to poison food, wishing I could die. The manager actually asked if I'd like a free meal afterwards.

 

[Chuckanut]

IIRC, I read that a certain medicine for toenail fungus is rather expensive and has about a 20% success rate. Hmmm....

 

[haha]

Well said! And especially the sex drug ads at dinner time.

I don't know, some of the most attractive, "middle aged" women the world has ever known appear in those ED adverts. And are they ever friendly!

Also, these pills seem to improve the man's appearance and economic success too. Tall slim guys with wavy steel grey hair, piloting 40' sloops. A lot to gain just by risking an erection that lasts > 4 hours.

Ha

 

[marko]

There's one ad (can't remember which) mentions "thoughts of suicide" a few times.

The problem is, the people on the ad are merrily walking along a 200 foot cliff overlooking the ocean. Probably not a good idea.

 

[Theseus]

The evening news is brought to you by today's wonder drug company while the news at noon is sponsored by the lawyers wanting you to sue last years wonder drug manufacturer.

Both law and medicine were not allowed to advertise when I was a kid.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

I would love to see a return to bans on law and medicine ads. And while we're at it, banning ads with any political substance whatsoever would make a for a wonderful world, would it not?

 

[JoeWras]

Wow, I thought the "death as a side effect" comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be taken so literally. But what do I know?

Maybe. But I know some people with bad arthritis who take some of the current crop of auto-immune drugs, and they openly talk about the death side effect.

That is, they were so miserable with the terrible arthritis, that they are willing to risk death with the improvement they've seen.

It isn't a 1 in a million. These drugs can suppress your system enough that you get leukemia or pneumonia, etc. It is a real risk.

As for Chantix, it worked great for my cousin and was life saving.

Finally... I, too, wish they'd get rid of these da*n commercials. Hate them.

 

[Midpack]

Follow the money. Doctors are highly incentivized - about 7 times as motivated as patients...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-bombarding-your-tv-with-more-ads-than-ever/

I don't doubt it, but the docs should still just say 'no' if that's the right thing to do. Doctors are professionals, in a line of work that should be held to high standards.

I suppose I could say that cops are incentivized to take bribes, and car companies are incentivized to cheat on emissions testing, but they still should do the right thing.

It's illegal for cops to accept bribes, and illegal for car companies to cheat on emissions testing. Big pharma has found legal ways or gray areas to pay doctors billions for promoting or prescribing their prescription drugs, medical devices, etc. World of difference...

And so far doctors have not been required to disclose the payouts, though the Sunshine Act may change that.

http://www.drugwatch.com/2014/10/02/big-pharma-pay-doctors-hospitals-billions/

 

[Redbugdave]

That's very interesting, Midpack. I always felt like the drug companies always were bribing doctors. When something becomes commonplace it is accepted.

Ha...If we start taking those ED fixer uppers now we may turn our lives around. But remember...everything is in slow motion on those commercials...

 

[HFWR]

http://youtu.be/D9FBQ1O5F8k

 

[HFWR]

I don't know, some of the most attractive, "middle aged" women the world has ever known appear in those ED adverts. And are they ever friendly!

Also, these pills seem to improve the man's appearance and economic success too. Tall slim guys with wavy steel grey hair, piloting 40' sloops. A lot to gain just by risking an erection that lasts > 4 hours.

Ha

Reminds me a really bad joke about a guy who only had a few bucks left. Goes into the grocery with his few remaining bucks, and comes out with a box of feminine pads. When a friend asked why he spent his last few bucks on that, he replied that, according to the TV commercial, you can ski, play tennis, go dancing...

 

[ERD50]

It's illegal for cops to accept bribes, and illegal for car companies to cheat on emissions testing. Big pharma has found legal ways or gray areas to pay doctors billions for promoting or prescribing their prescription drugs, medical devices, etc. World of difference...

And so far doctors have not been required to disclose the payouts, though the Sunshine Act may change that.

Big Pharma Paid $3.5 Billion to Doctors, Hospitals in 2013

OK, it's different.

But my point still stands - even if a Doctor feels 'pressure' from a patient to prescribe x,y,z, because the patient saw it on an ad - the Doctor should do the right thing, ethically. Either the drug is appropriate (and then the Doctor should have offered it to the patient - he's the pro, he should be current on the subject), or it isn't appropriate, and the Doctor says "no", and explains why.

Shouldn't a Doctor be expected to meet that simple standard? My post was in ref to people talking about the 'pressure' these ads put on Docs. I say, tough - the Doctor just needs to do the right thing.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Shouldn't a Doctor be expected to meet that simple standard? My post was in ref to people talking about the 'pressure' these ads put on Docs. I say, tough - the Doctor just needs to do the right thing.

-ERD50

You may be putting too much faith in the way things are supposed to be, and not granting enough to the way things actually are. We all have powerful motivational structures that may largely operate out of sight, but nevertheless get a strong say in what we do.

Ha

 

[photoguy]

And so far doctors have not been required to disclose the payouts, though the Sunshine Act may change that.

Propublica has been collecting and standardizing the sunshine data and you can browse it online here: https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/ . I believe they get the data directly from the pharma company and not from the doctor.

Here's an example for some doc in NJ who received 190k over two years

https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/doctors/pid/324458

You may be putting too much faith in the way things are supposed to be, and not granting enough to the way things actually are. We all have powerful motivational structures that may largely operate out of sight, but nevertheless get a strong say in what we do.

This is actually very well studied by medical researchers and there's a clearly unwanted influence and doctors are not able to remain completely objective:

most studies found negative outcomes associated with the interaction. These included an impact on knowledge (inability to identify wrong claims about medication), attitude (positive attitude toward pharmaceutical representatives; awareness, pref- erence, and rapid prescription of a new drug), and behavior (making formulary requests for medications that rarely held important advantages over existing ones; nonrational prescribing be- havior; increasing prescription rate; prescribing fewer generic but more expensive, newer medications at no demonstrated advantage.)

from http://med.stanford.edu/coi/journal articles/Wazana_A-Is_A_Gift_Ever_Just_A_Gift.pdf

Here's another interesting quote:

One study found that 85% of medical students believe it is improper for politicians to accept a gift, whereas only 46% found it improper for themselves to accept a gift of similar value from a pharmaceutical company.

 

[Midpack]

OK, it's different.

Shouldn't a Doctor be expected to meet that simple standard? My post was in ref to people talking about the 'pressure' these ads put on Docs. I say, tough - the Doctor just needs to do the right thing.

You may be putting too much faith in the way things are supposed to be, and not granting enough to the way things actually are. We all have powerful motivational structures that may largely operate out of sight, but nevertheless get a strong say in what we do.

+1. If you read the link, there's $24 billion from pharma to doctors that suggest you're faith is seriously misplaced. I wish your POV was more right, but it doesn't appear to be the case. Again, that's 7 times the $ pharma spends on direct to consumer advertising - and they're far too common IMO.

I know the Sunshine Act database is up and collecting, but it doesn't appear to have changed the pharma payoffs to doctors much - yet. Hope springs eternal, though I have to assume big pharma is already developing other "legal" angles...

And if you're not already incensed, ultimately the consumer pays every penny for all the ads and Doctor payoffs. What a racket!

 

[ERD50]

OK, it's different.

But my point still stands - even if a Doctor feels 'pressure' from a patient to prescribe x,y,z, because the patient saw it on an ad - the Doctor should do the right thing, ethically. Either the drug is appropriate (and then the Doctor should have offered it to the patient - he's the pro, he should be current on the subject), or it isn't appropriate, and the Doctor says "no", and explains why.

Shouldn't a Doctor be expected to meet that simple standard? My post was in ref to people talking about the 'pressure' these ads put on Docs. I say, tough - the Doctor just needs to do the right thing.

-ERD50

You may be putting too much faith in the way things are supposed to be, and not granting enough to the way things actually are. We all have powerful motivational structures that may largely operate out of sight, but nevertheless get a strong say in what we do.

Ha

I guess I was not clear - yes, I absolutely was talking about how things should be. I also think we should be able to expect that from such high level professionals.

Whether we are getting it or not is a different matter.

-ERD50

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Apropos of nothing, a friend sent me a link to a video where a young woman in a lab coat says, "If you have an erection lasting more than four hours, CALL ME."

These ads deserve satire.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app