Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is good and bad

Column by Jordan Covvey

I’d be willing to bet that by this point, everyone has seen the “Viva Viagra” television commercial. But just in case you haven’t, the general plot is the same throughout. An ordinary middle-aged man stumbles through his mundane life, fumbling through dance lessons, or perhaps returning from work in his sensible four-door sedan.

But somewhere along the way, the dawn breaks and this man begins spinning his wife around the dance floor with ease or coasts through the mountains on a decked-out motorcycle. Why, may you ask? All because of Viagra! In one of my favorite versions, a group of older men are gathered in a music recording studio in the wee hours of the morning when one breaks out in song regarding his beloved little blue pill. You certainly can’t charge Pfizer (makers of Viagra) with a lack of creativity.

Viagra isn’t the only one. Commercial breaks are filled with balloons floating through the sky, relieving women of painful premenstrual symptoms (Yaz, made by Berlex Laboratories), or the bee with the French accent who finally gets to continue his love affair with a flower, cured of his seasonal allergies by the magic of Nasonex (made by Schering-Plough.) I wouldn’t begin to argue that these drugs don’t offer the relief that they claim. If this were the case, I might have to reconsider my career choice. However, they present an interesting force in today’s consumer market – direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

Currently, only two developed countries in the world allow this type of advertisement, the United States and New Zealand. Billions of dollars are spent every year to advertise these drugs to consumers, and the trend continues to grow.

As reported by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs nearly quadrupled between 1997 and 2005, from $1.1 billion to $4.2 billion. This represented a 19.6 percent annual increase. Where this becomes interesting is, though we spend a significantly greater amount of money on the research and development of prescription drugs ($31.4 billion in 2005), this sector of spending has only seen a 9.3 percent annual increase in the same 1997-2005 time period. Ultimately, it seems the focus has switched to selling drugs to consumers, rather than developing new therapies.

Every issue has two sides. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs makes health information more accessible to the public and encourages patients to be more up-front with their physicians and more involved in their treatment. After working in a pharmacy for several years, I can tell you that a patient taking a more active role in his or her treatment is always beneficial.

However, where does general education stop and persuasive sale of a commodity begin? Drug manufacturers are, by default, in the business of selling drugs, and one can’t help but wonder the true motives of advertising prescription medications to consumers.

The answer in this controversy most likely lies somewhere between black and white. Consumers should be active in their healthcare by being open and honest with their clinicians so that they receive the best care available. Direct-to-consumer advertising is certainly a means of education and might even prompt a silent patient to be more vocal about asking for help. However, I believe it is ultimately important to trust the knowledge and expertise of healthcare professionals. Make decisions together with your prescriber and pharmacist, motivated by health and wellness, rather than advertisements for the magic cure.