« How does a Scotsman get his healthcare information? | Main | If it’s Tuesday it must be a single nucleotide polymorphism »
September 03, 2008
The Pied Piper Effect
by Peter Pitts
A new study out of Harvard debunks the canard that DTC advertising causes a “Pied Piper” effect of patients marching en masse to their physicians demanding drugs they don’t need.
Reuters reports that, “Expensive advertising of prescription drugs directly to consumers may do little to encourage sales, U.S. and Canadian researchers reported on Monday.”
According to the report, even though companies spent an estimated $3 billion in 2005 on such ads in the United States, they did not appear to result in more prescriptions.
"People tend to think that if direct-to-consumer advertising wasn't effective, pharma wouldn't be doing it," HarvardMedicalSchool's Stephen Soumerai said in a statement. "But as it turns out, decisions to market directly to consumers are based on scant data."
The nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation has come to similar conclusions in reports on direct-to-consumer ads.
In an April report the foundation found that 91 percent of adults surveyed had seen or heard advertisements for prescription drugs, but just one-third spoke to a doctor about a drug they saw advertised, and 54 percent of them got a prescription for a different drug.
Among doctors, 76 percent said they sometimes recommend a different prescription drug to a patient who mentions a drug ad and 5 percent said they frequently gave patients the drug.
Posted by peterpitts at September 3, 2008 07:49 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/227
