Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals of prescription drugs is a powerful force in the health care market. Proponents claim that good direct-to-consumer advertising educates and empowers patients in their relationship with their health care providers. Furthermore, they assert that direct-to-consumer advertising provides an opportunity for patients to talk with providers about under-diagnosed and under-treated medical conditions and may lead to improved health outcomes. Opponents of the practice argue that there is an inherent conflict of interest for pharmaceutical companies in advertising of pharmaceuticals product directly to patients and that the decision to advertise is not based on concern for the public health but rather investment return. Physicians and other health care providers are often caught in the middle of this debate trying to bridge the divide between consumer perception and medical reality. In order to be successful at this task, physicians need to be optimally informed about direct-to-consumer advertising and its effects on health care practice.
Advocates of DCTA approach the subject in two distinct ways. For one, they hold that it benefits patients by increasing awareness, removing the stigma of certain diseases, and other factors. Secondly, they suggest that it follows the digitization of information, permitting patients to take control of their health.
1. BENEFITS TO THE PATIENT
Proponents suggest that DCTA promotes virtual access to healthcare. They hold that it has multiple benefits for patients, including the following.
It encourages patients to contact health professionals and addresses under-diagnosis. Others add that DTCA encourages patients to seek medical advice. Reports find that many US patients are indeed more likely to discuss conditions they hadn’t previously disclosed. Similarly, other studies add to the conclusion that DTCA assists patients by encouraging seeking medical advice. In doing so, it helps address under-diagnosis and undertreatment.
2. AN EFFICIENT PRODUCT OF DIGITIZATION
Similarly, proponents suggest that it’s an effective product of digitization, complementing advertising of pharmaceuticals to healthcare professionals (HCPS).
It is safe due to the digital market. Given all the regulations that DTCA has seen, many argue it’s a safe means of advertising. Risk management frequently stresses disclaimers and side-effects, which some find have even made pharma ads “formulaic [and] boring”.
It is facilitated by social media advertising. Finally, marketers argue that social media marketing, which continues to boom, facilitates all of DTCA’s benefits. Social interactions accelerate positive change, and the amount of money earned from such advertising benefits the market.
CONS OF DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING IN THE PHARMA INDUSTRY
Still, it is not a subject without detractors. Critics see more harm than benefit in the pros and cons of Direct-to-Consumer advertising in the pharma industry. They typically focus on two fronts; disinformation and drug over-utilization, and increased costs to patients.
1. DISINFORMATION AND DRUG OVER-UTILIZATION
Critics frequently cite the potential for misinformation as grounds for more regulations or other actions.
DTCA may omit crucial information. Studies find that such ads may omit risk factors, prevalence, and other critical information. Coupled with language and messaging clarity, they argue that patients may be insufficiently informed on relevant pharmaceuticals.
It may promote drug over-utilization. Other studies stress that DTCA adds to the “medicalization” of trivial conditions and ailments. Combined with arguably over-trusting audiences, they argue that it promotes overmedication.
2. INCREASED COST TO PATIENTS
Finally, critics claim that DTCA results in increased medical costs for patients.
It may increase the cost of pharmaceuticals of equal effectiveness. As DTCA constitutes marketing, critics hold that branding and presentation may lead to misinformed decisions. They argue that patients may be wrongly convinced that more expensive pharmaceuticals may offer more benefits than cheaper alternatives.
It strains relationships with healthcare professionals. Finally, critics note that DTCA may diminish patients’ trust in their healthcare providers. In combination, some physicians argue that having to convince patients of a drug’s inappropriateness wastes appointment time. These factors, some claim, increase the overall cost of health services by reducing the quality of health-related appointments.
