Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Miller Beer is Sorry About tha... | Steinbrueck on MTV »

Monday, October 29, 2007

Edwards Proposes Limits on Drug Ads

posted by on October 29 at 14:14 PM

Campaigning in New Hampshire, John Edwards proposed a moratorium of two years before drug companies can advertise new drugs to consumers.


The two-year delay would prevent television ads from driving consumers to drugs that haven’t been proven safe, said Edwards, who also would require drug companies to get Food and Drug Administration approval before launching major ad campaigns.

“I think two years makes sense. I think it gives enough time for a drug not just to have been tested in clinical trials but to be out among the public, to see what kind of adverse reactions there have been,” he told reporters afterward.

Edwards’ plan also includes increased penalties for companies that violate truth-in-advertising laws and would require companies to disclose more information about a drug’s side effects and effectiveness compared to placebos and less expensive alternative drugs.

The US and New Zealand are the only countries in the developed world where advertising drugs directly to consumers is legal (and virtually unregulated.) Our lax rules encourage drug companies to spend tremendous amounts of money on lavish ad campaigns. Those ads underplay potential side effects, lead doctors to over-diagnose conditions, and drive up the cost of health care for everyone. Edwards’s two-year moratorium wouldn’t be as effective as a total ban, but it’s a start.

RSS icon Comments

1

uh, how about not letting them be sold until they are safe?

Posted by infrequent | October 29, 2007 2:18 PM
2

Hey, with drug ads removed from television, there would be no NFL games!

Posted by Football Fan | October 29, 2007 2:18 PM
3

I love the ads for Lunesta and Ambien CR, where they say things like "contact your doctor if you find yourself doing unusual activities during sleep, such as eating or driving a car"

Posted by Hmm | October 29, 2007 2:19 PM
4

Just don't wait for Hillary to make a similar proposal. (Or Obama, probably, for that matter.)

Posted by tsm | October 29, 2007 2:23 PM
5

while using ambien CR, i found myself contacting my doctor in my sleep. is that unusual?

Posted by infrequent | October 29, 2007 2:24 PM
6

Pointless grandstanding--will never get past first amendment issues...

Posted by Westside forever | October 29, 2007 2:31 PM
7

what a waste of political hot air

some are hysterically funny as they list all the side effects

but, some are of great use and when the patient asks, the doc can give an opinion

mr. edwards needs to bring down the cost

Posted by Leyland | October 29, 2007 2:45 PM
8

In fairness, the high price of drugs is the reason they get developed. No one would spend $2 billion developing a new drug that they aren't sure would work (most don't) if they didn't know that they had some hope of getting money from it.

And today's brand spanking new drug is tomorrow's aspirin or ibuprophen, generic and cheaply available.

I'm not defending the advertising, I'm just saying you can't fault drug companies for trying to make money on their insanely expensive to create products.

Posted by Andrew | October 29, 2007 2:52 PM
9

@8 - given that the pharmaceutical industry takes in the highest profit margin of any other industry in the nation - and a few times higher than most industries - that's a questionable rationalization. It has far more to do with lobbying, as well as crass efforts to squeeze more money out of public programs (the recent Medicare prescription drug plan does not allow the government to negotiate lower prices for drugs.)

Posted by tsm | October 29, 2007 3:10 PM
10

scratch the "other" in "other industry". Hey, I don't get paid to proofread.

Posted by tsm | October 29, 2007 3:11 PM
11

andrew,

hmmm... the thing is, they are making way more than is needed to justify the cost of the medication. that higher price doesn't mean more profits, it means more profit at the cost of pain and suffering if not death. in a way, the consumer allows them them to get away with it. but so do insurance agencies and politicians.

make a profit? great. make too much at the cost of lives? not so great.

Posted by infrequent | October 29, 2007 3:30 PM
12

Much of the R&D that goes into truly life-saving/life-improving drugs is funded by government and private donations, not pharmaceutical companies. Many of the new drugs rolled out by drug companies are "me too" drugs: slightly new formulations of the same old shit.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 29, 2007 3:39 PM
13

I don't understand why I have to talk to a highly trained professional to make decisions about complex and possibly harmful drugs I might want to take. I just want to take them all. I snorted a few lines of Lunesta a few minutes ago, and I feel great. Frzltih!

Drug advertising should be illegal, full stop.

Posted by Fnarf | October 29, 2007 3:40 PM
14

andrew,

hmmm... the thing is, they are making way more than is needed to justify the cost of the medication. that higher price doesn't mean more profits, it means more profit at the cost of pain and suffering if not death. in a way, the consumer allows them them to get away with it. but so do insurance agencies and politicians.

make a profit? great. make too much at the cost of lives? not so great.

Posted by infrequent | October 29, 2007 3:49 PM
15

But since Beavis and Butthead went off the air, prescription drug ads are practically the only time I get to hear the word "diarrhea" on television. Don't take that away from me Edwards!

The advertising IS pretty shady, but not half as shady as the issue of doctors over-prescribing medications at the behest of the manufacturers. ANY sort of kickbacks a medical professional reaps from big drug co.'s should be considered in conflict with his or her Hippocratic oath.

Posted by Dougsf | October 29, 2007 4:07 PM
16

ECB, you left off your list that drug ads cause people to ask their docs for meds they don't even need. Most docs don't have an extra 15 minutes to convince a determined patient that the generic she/he already prescribed is just as good. They just shrug and write the scrip to get on to the next pt. Then there are the drugs for problems you didn't know you had until you saw an ad for it. Advertising works Americans take more over-the counter nad prescibed medication than any other country in the world.

Posted by inkweary | October 29, 2007 4:43 PM
17

No regulation? Each print drug ad I've seen has three columns of warnings, cautions, data, and explanation next to it. The TV ads all say, "Ask your doctor if Glip is right for you." I don't get what the problem with drug ads is supposed to be.

I do agree with the commenters who want drugs to be fully tested when they are released, not two years later.

Drugmakers recover drug development costs in the US -- any profit they make overseas is gravy for them.

Posted by pain killer | October 29, 2007 4:56 PM
18

Give him credit for taking on the pharma industry. Also, i want to say that I read somewhere today that only a couple of developed countries allow such advertising.

Posted by elmofan | October 30, 2007 12:12 AM
19

It's been a looooooong time in this country since citizen advantage and consideration has bested the drug companies' interest. Merck, Lilly, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis.....they own Washington now.

Posted by Bauhaus | October 30, 2007 5:14 AM
20

That damn herpes drug ad has my previously very understanding boyfriends FREAKED. I have herpes. Contracted in a monogamous relationship with a man who ignored his symptoms. I have been married twice, never used a condom with my spouses. We enjoyed ourselves thoroughly! (wink wink nudge nudge). We just didn't have sex when my body told me that an outbreak was happening, and until it was cleared up. That was our safe sex. I NEVER TRANSMITTED THE VIRUS.

But now, with the drug(which apparently I can't name here) ad on morning, noon, and night, and repeating ad nauseum "In fact, one study found that up to 70% of people who had genital herpes got it from their partner when their partner had no signs or symptoms of an outbreak."

My contention is that most of those people who passed it on IGNORED their symptoms. Who were they asking, the people who passed the virus, or the people that got it. My virus-laden ex-boyfriend would tell you that he was asymptomatic at the time, but I saw the bump. I assured me it had always been there. I was yound and stupid. But I'm not anymore.

Anyway - my boyfriend won't head south, AND has this new condom obsession. Fine, I get it. But what these drug ads do is screw with people like me, whose body signals LONG before the outbreak that it is coming. I also know the triggers (illness, stress, prolonged lack of sleep - those are mine, so I try to minimize them.)

It doesn't take drugs to stop the spread, it takes edu-freaking-cation. People with the virus need to tune in to their bodies, be honest with their partners, and know when to say NO.

These same people will be just as dangerous with the drug, because they are STUPID.

Meanwhile, I'm no longer getting what I need because of a freaking drug commercial!!!

Posted by Stella | October 31, 2007 11:14 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).