I know no one who has ever suffered "Restless Leg Syndrome", but it's my hope they never go to Vegas or Atlantic City, because if they take a pill for their restless legs, they might end up with an empty wallet.

Last week I put my TV on for the first time in months only to see Brooke Shields of all people pushing a new pill for, get this: Longer eyelashes.

Yes, folks, you can now take a pill to get longer, thicker eyelashes.

I didn't bother to stick around for the side effects given in that fast and cheerful over-narrative....I just turned off my television set and got out my mascara and said to myself, "WTF next?".

May cause baldness, hirsuteness of the legs, elevated bilirubins or depressed buttocks, joint aches or swellings, hairy tongue, scratchy gums, drowsiness, insomnia, loss of taste, craving for chili's, patients on this drug should not consume alcohol, lemonade, non-kosher meats or Philadelphia brand cream cheese or flatulence may develop.

I am very curious Oleeb how much certain doctors may get from pharma companies for prescribing drugs... is there a connection.

My mom's cardiologist put her on hbp pressure medication over a year ago... she did not have high blood pressure but her doctor said, oh everybody needs it at your age. When they prescribe hpb meds, it's for life...

a few weeks ago I had to fly up to Chicago because my mom went to the hospital with stroke symptoms... it turned out that she had dangerously low blood pressure. Needless to say she is no longer on the hpb meds...

Well we certainly can. It was banned previously. This obscene bombardment of drug ads only began when the previous, sensible prohibition was lifted.

Hi eds. There are multiple reports on advertising impacts on the cost of drugs in the US. Here's one and here's a bunch more .

I like the ads... They are a consistent mine for unintentional comedy. I love how the ads must softshoe painful and embarrassing problems like ED or incontinence.

Okay okay i will be serious. Pharma invests so heavily in order to acquire leverage. TV ads are a great way to inflate prices and accumulate political power. I think the ads are purposefullh silly in order to make the industry seem innocuous and gentle. In the same manner that anti-tobacco ads funded by tobacco get the message out in the silliest and mock-edgy fashion. They act as a vaccination from legitimate concerns.

I don't know if I would ban the outright. I would try and create a sliding scale kind of regulation... Limit the hours to 9 PM to 4 AM for standard airwave purchase rates, and double the cost for daytime/triple the cost for primetime. Lower the rate if the disclaimer is slowed down and presented in legible large print.

I am more of the mindset of draining the swamp instead of outright banning. I think I will do some research into Japan's legal amphetamine problem pre-WWII and what was done to counter that menace.

Anyhow, this is a thoughtful (a tad overwrought) post. I look forward to the remaining installments. I would also reccomend "White Noise" by Don Delillo for its pertinence to the subject matter.

You can always go on and very rarely does any of your going on contribute anything worthwhile or positive. Just saying...

It's amazing how it's often seen as radical simply to return to an old status quo. As people moan about tax rates, barely any remember that in the early 1960s, the top tax rate was 92%.

And that shoulda been a reply to your NEXT comment.
Sigh.

Looks like mine is a minority opinion, but I have an intense dislike for government bans. It smacks of creeping Big Brotherism. I don't want the government telling me that I can't grow a few marijuana plants in my back yard. By the same token, I really do not want government to dictate what lawful products cannot be advertised.

At some point, we as individuals have to take responsibility for our own well-being. I think there is a world of difference between necessary, responsible government intervention, and the unwelcome, irresponsible overreach of the nanny state.

It is not possible for us to pollute only the air that we personally breathe, or the water that we personally drink. Pollution affects us all. Environmental laws are an appropriate use of government power.

But I cannot support the concept of government protecting us from ourselves. I am about as far to the left as it gets, but I have no desire to live in a nanny state. As a compromise, you can levy a federal surcharge on the advertising dollars. It would fund a website and printed publications where consumers could obtain the information to counter the advertising claims.

The law could require that instructions on how to obtain the information must be prominent, not like the fine print in car rental ads. The pharmaceutical company would have no control over the content of the information about its drug. The only requirement would be that the opposing information must be based on science and research.

That is a solution I can live with. I am a leftist/anarchist who thinks that it is entirely appropriate for government to provide certain services (e.g. health care, protecting the environment,occupational safety, etc.) where profit cannot or should not be the primary consideration.

I also think that a couple of joints a week is all the "medicine" most of us need anyway. Don't pollute my water. Don't poison my air. But if you want to poison yourself with pharmaceuticals go right ahead. I will even help pay for information that explains why you should not do it.

Just don't ask me to support government bans on advertising. Inevitably it means that one day, the government will get around to banning the advertisement of something that you use.

If people need more information in order to make intelligent decisions about these commercials, then by all means let us mnake it available. But we do a disservice to them, to ourselves, and to our society if we rely on government to absolve people of the responsibility of making good decisions.

There was a great deal of controversy when commercial speech was initially declared by the Supremes to be "protected speech" under the First Amendment. As I recall it was comfortably post-Civil War - it may have even been in the early 20th Century.
Prior to that decision, it was largely prohibited, by smaller state units - municipalities, counties, and states, as a nuisance.
The patent medicines I mentioned above were a contributor to the prohibitionist sentiment, as were attorneys, interestingly enough.
Imagine late night TV - or a newspaper, without any ads for various medical consumables(antacids included!) or attorneys letting they can help with your accident/asbestos/product/treatment problems.

Good topic, Oleeb.

I've observed among family members and friends who are tv watchers a disturbing lack of motivation when it comes to taking responsibility for their health. It should be obvious that if you want to be healthy, you have to do things, take action, in ways that make you healthy. The action part, however, appears to be a stumbling block for many people.

The most insidious part of food and drug advertising, in my view, is that it has fostered a segment of society that has little intrinsic motivation. Rather, it has fostered a group that is dependent on external forces to solve its ills.

It seems their underlying, and very powerful, message is that it's preferable to expend a minimum of effort and time in tending to matters that ultimately affect one's health.

Why change your diet and exercise more when you can take a pill? Too busy to cook with fresh ingredients? How about a meal in a box, bag, or can? These underlying messages have been repeated over and over.

I, too, would like to see pharmaceutical advertising disappear, and the economic front looks to be a good angle from which to push for its obsolescence.

Glad you brought this up, oleeb.

The real problem with pharmaceutical advertising is the ridiculous prohibition against advertising narcotics on TV!

Ask your doctor for Demerol! The first shot is free!

Caution: Demerol may be more addictive than other opioids because of its exceptionally rapid onset of action and associated "rush", and additional activity as a monoamine transporter inhibitor, which results in cocaine-like stimulant effects in addition to its typical opioid effects.

It's like two drugs for the price of one!

No pain!

No brain!

Ride the Demerol train tonight!

Sorry mon ami - I am almost positive it is a First Amendment issue.
Sure, the FDA could regulate all those drugs and products out of existence, but if you follow that track far enough all we'll have left is aspirin and sugar tablets. And those will still be advertised in the same fashion which annoys us so much.
It's the advertising that is the issue - which is speech, much as political donations are.

I was a huge fan of the late George Carlin. I am also old enough to remember when he first released his classic routine about 7 dirty words you cannot say on television.

In the spirit of free speech and rebellion that Carlin symbolized, I just don't see anything "progressive" or even beneficial about replacing four of those original seven words with

"" ask your doctor about"".

People, we all have minds. Let us not get into the habit of using government as a crutch or an excuse not to use those minds.

Good place to start oleeb.

The purpose of contemporary advertising is to create customers. It is not to inform or educate. Pharmaceutical advertising was banned in the U.S. (as it still is virtually everywhere else in the world) until corporate personhood was further expanded to include advertising as a free speech right. However, that is not an unlimited right. For example, product advertising cannot outright lie - which is why pharma ads are required to include the side effects (while pretty pictures and uplifting music plays in the background).

I am with you that they should not be allowed to advertise in other than an informational mode. Getting to that point likely requires more than a simple legislative change as it requires rolling back at least some of the "corporate personhood" structure. Of course, I don't think that corporations should have ANY personhood under the Constitution.

We are discussing precription medications. Advertising to the general public for these drugs was not allowed in the past and that prohibition could easily be re-established. Other than us, only Australia, among our indusrialized peer nations, allows such advertising.

Oleeb, great post.

You know that I have railed against this travesty, this profit seeking capitalistic attempt to make money off of sick people and those who think they are sick for sometime--attempting satire of course.

I am so pissed off about this. Sticks on a sponge or some pretend ADDS blah blah blah that does not even exist.

I peg it all to that dufus Dole. He loses the presidency and thinks...how can I make a buck off of this. And he stands, in front of the American people and says:

you know, it came to a point that I just could not get it up anymore

MY GOD, A WWII HERO, SELLING PENIS MEDICINE THAT CAN ONLY BE PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR.

Damn it pisses me off.

We need national protocols for doctors for chrissakes (blesses himself kind of). Blood, urine, xrays.........

THEN THE DOCTOR DECIDES IF YOU ARE SICK AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO GET A SECOND OPINION.

Oleeb, jesus, great post. got my blood boiling ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thom Hartmann had a guest writer the last week who stated that the drug companies do NOT have to publish their research, just forward that research to the FDA. Evidently, if we, the people, wish to find out the results, we need to invoke the Freedom of Information Act, i.e. it takes an Act of Congress to find out what they companies reported. In relation to anti-depressives, it was found that NONE of them had any more effect then a placebo, NONE!!!

We may need our pitchforks to get our government to work for the people.

Thank you, Oleeb, for your post.

Forgive me if I missed it when I scrolled thru the many comments, but I didn't see anyone mention my understanding of the main rea$on why Big Pharma wants to market to consumers directly:

The biggest profits on a drug come when that drug is available through only one source, i.e., the company that developed it. I can't say for sure offhand, but it sticks in my mind that patents for new drugs are good for only seventeen (17) years, after which it becomes possible for other companies to manufacture "generic" versions of same.

So, the idea behind marketing a drug to consumers directly is this: as soon as a new drug gets patented, the clock starts ticking toward its time of less profitability. It's in its creator's best (read: most profitable) interest to spread the word ASAP, so its popularity/usage gains momentum ASAP.

Usually you just go into your 'edit entry' screen, change the 'publish on' date and time to the correct time and date. Then hit 'save'. If you don't change the 'publish on' time/date the blog will stay up on the boards here till tomorrow morning, or about 12 hours after it was actually published. Ive had to do this operation myself.

I don't have a problem with your tone, but with your illogical pretenses. However, you're welcome to your opinions and your distortions in this venue.

Hi miguel, I don't get your post in context. What is it supposed to mean that there are studies about advertising impacts? I was commenting on the OP's lousy rhetoric more than making a case re actual costs. But since you bring it up...

Producers advertise new products to help develop a market for them, and then once the market is growing they tend to back off on the promotion so as to increase profits. Patents legitimize charging high prices for novel stuff that people want, and that people want the novel stuff justifies charging a high price. The greed for the latest chemical technology is simply market forces.

Asking for generic drugs can save a lot in many cases. Whose fault is it when people don't ask for or insist on options from their healthcare provider?

"The general public is not in possession of the requisite knowledge to evaluate such products"

That is why they are Prescription products!!

Silly you.

"Pharma invests so heavily in order to acquire leverage. TV ads are a great way to inflate prices and accumulate political power."

How exactly does an ED ad "accumulate political power"?

Aren't you just spinning the normal situation that sometimes advertising pays because it increases the market and thus sales volumes go up to that profit margins improve? It's not that ads inflate prices, it's that they increase sales at whatever prices the market will bear.

Hi there. :-)

"the main rea$on why Big Pharma wants to market to consumers directly"

I don't see that as the main reason. 17 years is a long time. The main reason is simply that pushing a novel product brings sales up more quickly than letting it trickle into the awareness of the potential market. So you have a blitz to "announce" the product, and not just press releases but saturation advertising for months or a year since press releases don't generally reach the final consumer effectively.

If the patent life were 5 years, I think your view would have more merit. And there is another factor, once word is out about your novel drug other companies will work to produce their own drugs for the same market and maybe get their own patents. So there is pressure to drive the growth curve into the "cash cow" phase more quickly regardless of patent protection.

The fact is that ads generally stay on TV because they are somewhat effective and then go away as the marketing is either successful or unsuccessful (of course they don't go away entirely, Bayer still sometimes advertises, for instance). There are big markets for some of these novel drugs.

Absolutely right, Oleeb. You know, I presume, that prescription drug advertising to the general public was in fact prohibited for years.

And it should be again, for the reasons you specified, most tellingly: "The sole purpose of these ads is to create markets where none previously existed or to exploit a previously untapped or undersold market to the fullest. This is done for one reason and one reason only and that is to boost drug company profits. None of these ads...has anything to do with benefiting the people these drugs are being marketed to."

Another thought... not being one who watches televion (I opted out of having cable).

I do often watch the Daily Show or a certain news segment online and I just realized that the advertisements tend to be for Cheetos or Blackberry's, occassionally alcohol and such... which I much prefer to drug advertisements. So perhaps another remedy is to remove ourselves from the 'target' market by how we expose ourselves.

You've got a headache,
And I've got some strange disease.
Don't worry about it!
This pill will set your mind at ease.
It's called Progenitorivox,
And it's made by SquabbMerlCo.
It's a life-enhancing miracle,
But there are some things you should know.

It may cause:
Agitation
Palpitations
Excessive salivation
Constipation
Male lactation
Rust-colored urination
Hallucinations
Bad vibrations
Mild electric shock sensations

But it's worth it
For the drugs I need.

My disease may not be fatal,
But I can ease my fears
By taking two twelve-dollar pills
Each day for fifty years.
They've spent billions to convince me,
So now I realize
Progenitorivox beats diet and exercise.

I've got insurance.
At least for now, I do.
And if I bought generic,
It would cut my costs in two.
But I *want* Progenitorivox
'Cause I saw it on TV.
Those families looked so functional,
That paisley pill's for me!

But it may cause:
Deprivation
Humilation
Debtors' Prison, and
Deportation
Dark depictions
Dire predictions
Life as seen in Dickens' fiction
Empty pockets
Court dockets
May cause eyes to pop from sockets

But it's worth it
For the drugs I need.

But it's worth it
(interrupting, to the tune of "O, Canada!")
In Canada,
They get this for a song!

But it's worth it
For the drugs I need
(repeats throughout closing "disclaimer" voice-over, below)

DISCLAIMER: (read rapidly in a low voice at song's end)

The opinions expressed in this song are not necessarily those of SquabbMerlCo or its subsidiaries. Progenitorivox is not available, anywhere. Offer void in Wisconsin. Any resemblance to actual drugs, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Any unauthorized use of your own judgment in the application of Progenitorivox is strictly prohibited. Progenitorivox may not be reproduced without the expressed written consent of Major League Baseball. Progenitorivox may cause drowsiness or restlessness in lab animals. Do not resume sexual activity while operating heavy machinery without consulting your physician.
For erections lasting longer than four hours, insert your own joke here. If you experience psychotic episodes, you're crazy. If death occurs, discontinue use of Progenitorivox immediately. If symptoms persist, consult your physician.
All sales final. Batteries not included.

I think Oleeb's trying to convey that the marketing of drugs increases the overall cost of the healthcare 'system'. While it is certainly the manufacturers' prerogative to do so in a free market system, the practice does nothing to improve the overall health of a population, and as such those costs shouldn't be as significant a part of the market price of drugs we buy or borne by the system. The issues described in this blog are a bit muddled, by what I think his whole argument hinges on, and that is whether we accept healthcare in general, and drugs in particular as a commodity subject to market forces and manipulations. Or is it in a different class altogether which due to its' nature should be regulated and controlled in order to deliver products and services at the lowest possible cost to society. You are correct in your assessment of the medicines still under patent protection, and I see those drugs and services as an ideal place for private medical insurance to fill gaps that may be excluded if they are not demonstrably more effective than existing/cheaper drugs in a public healthcare system.

Proposing a logical argument against this knowing that on the other side are people making a lot of money is futile. There are a lot of millionaires in this world who got that way because people are stupid. Arguing with people with a lot of money or dumbasses are both a waste of time.

I agree with everything but the "easy" part. It ought to be easy, but that doesn't mean it would be.

Agreed, but that doesn't answer my question: Where is the profit in advertising prescription drugs? Are there really that many doctors who either buckle under their patients' pressure, or are unaware of the benefits of a certain drug until their patients bring it to their attention?

I don't get it.

"In short, advertising prescription drug is completely unnecessary, a massive waste of billions of consumer's dollars, and should be banned immediately and forever. Not one soul will miss it. "

Yes... my poor husband...as a retired physician, living through the nightmare of the super-gilded-profitization of US medicine..
If I have said once I have said a hundred times.

BAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG ADVERTISING! If we do nothing else it will save billions just as you say.

It would just be passed along ending up as a tax on consumers.

Sure. Have you noticed that many ads no longer make any claims whatsoever?
You can't regulate claims that are never made.
Again - it comes back to shiny happy people and a soothing voice tell you to "ask your doctor if midixadroopin is right for you."
Most such ads don't make any claims whatsoever - they merely ask if you're feeling run down, inadequate, etc.
They don't even assert that their products may help with one of the afore-mentioned conditions.

If you don't already understand the point, I must tell you that it is anything but accidental.
Such advertising exists for the explicit purpose of avoiding the regulations you mention.
Those regulations achieve a substantial public interest, and as such don't fall afoul of First Amendment speech protections - because false claims can be proven. Any ads that don't violate the regs cannot be prohibited.

Said previous sensible prohibition was declared an unlawful infringement on First Amendment speech rights, by the final arbiters on such matters in the United States. Aka the Supreme Court. That's why it's permitted, and why it's not going to be easy to revert.
As a consequence, to change that at this point requires:
A) a Supreme Court ruling explicitly overturning the previous decision (rolling right over stare decisis)
or
B) an Amendment to the Constitution explicitly prohibiting this type of advertising speech

We all know how the ERA worked out, so I think it's safe to say that route is either a no-go, or one in which it will take 2 generations to effect.
And expecting that the Roberts Court will overturn a decision near and dear to a bare majority of current Justices before Roberts and Alito joined the court - I just don't think it's realistic.

The "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense doesn't actually work against people who have a good idea of what they are speaking about.
If you would be kind enough to point out the instances of "illogical pretenses" and "distortions", I'll be happy to correct your perceptions.
Or mine, if your criticism is substantiated.
Seriously.
I try to shake off ideological blinders when I find myself wearing them - I hope you try to do the same.

Advertising is about demand stimulation, causing it to increase.
It's explained by basic microeconomics - if demand increases and supply remains constant - price increases.
If production costs remain constant, profit per unit increases with demand.
(And usually, as demand increases, so does production - achieving greater economy of scale which in turn leads to greater profit per unit.)

Some percentage of the people who see an ad, and then inquire with their physician about the product advertised, may be have conditions which may be treatable with the advertised product. And many of those physicians will prescribe the product, where they would not have prior to the patients' questions about it.
It's no different than advertising widgets, except there's a layer(the physician) between the buyer and seller. Not everyone will want or need one, but some will - and by reaching the larger group, you get the smaller groups' attention and consequently a better chance at their money.

End tax deductions for advertising, if you want to have an impact - the speech route is too obdurately complex. That would not end it altogether, but it would make it less profitable, and greater public reporting could lead to greater support for regulating corporate activity.

But it is commercial speech.
Said previous sensible prohibition was declared an unlawful infringement on First Amendment speech rights, by the final arbiters on such matters in the United States. Aka the Supreme Court. That's why it's permitted, and why it's not going to be easy to revert.
As a consequence, to change that at this point requires:
A) a Supreme Court ruling explicitly overturning the previous decision (rolling right over stare decisis)
or
B) an Amendment to the Constitution explicitly prohibiting this type of advertising speech

We all know how the ERA worked out, so I think it's safe to say that route is either a no-go, or one in which it will take 2 generations to effect.
And expecting that the Roberts Court will overturn a decision near and dear to a bare majority of current Justices before Roberts and Alito joined the court - I just don't think it's realistic.
Speech rights accrue to corporate persons, as mentioned below, and that's how the previous prohibitions were overturned as a 1A infringement.
Scalia wrote that majority opinion.

Advertising isn't actually a tax deduction. It is a business expense that is a complete writeoff. You'd be hard pressed to disallow such an expense. I run a small business and have several thousand dollars of advertising cost per year. If I can't claim that as a business expense I can assure you I would reduce that expenditure. Every business, big or small, claims every nickel of expense.

Where it becomes troublesome is when businesses invent stuff because they have so much damn money they don't know what to do with it all. The obvious example is the precipitous rise in political donations that has occurred over the years.

So? Who else should pay in the end but consumers, non-consumers??

Why do you reply at all? Your comments in re my comments are just stupidity in action, and generally amount to only personal attacks.

You were called on bullshit. So far the call sticks and each of your replies to date has only added to your bad reputation.

You wrote a "preach to the choir" post but cannot defend it except by attacking your strawman version of me.

Whatever.

"There is no reason for prescription drugs to be advertised to the general public. "

You're not paying attention: Health enhancement (or quality of life enhancement via prescription meds).

There is plenty of reason to let people know about health enhancing drugs, even if the details are arguable. The point of my aphoristic comment was that MDs are supposed to put a check on the irrational exuberance of some consumers when TV which reaches 'everyone' builds expectations which are not medically appropriate for all.

There are legit concerns about who should pay for life enhancements which are equatable to elective surgeries for say cosmetic reasons alone. My fiscal conservative side says No to my taxes or insurance pool money going to pay for such, in almost all cases.

If we don't put checks on spending, Obama's woefully inept prediction of 2x-3x health care costs will prove true, even with single payer.

I'm confused. You suggested such a tax, implying it be levied on ads, and now seem to question that it gets passed along to the end user. Invariably that is how it ends up. The end user of any product is the one who pays the tax. It sounds like you are retracting the idea of the tax on ads as not such a hot idea? I would agree with that.

I'm not being dense in the least. I run a business and purchase goods and provide services for resale. In all instances the tax is ultimately passed on to the end user. That is how it works. Plain and simple.

No, in point of fact, I was not called on bullshit. You were writing bullshit, you (frequently) miss the point entirely and just gnaw on some tiny portion of what someone writes. You are a pest and a rude one at that.