31–40 of 329 posts
Can't a free market sort out the problems with drug use?
No, because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life
And? If that's their preference who are you (or I, etc.) to say otherwise?
The information provided to both doctors and patients by drug companies is marketing material. The best source of information is peer-reviewed publications, and even those are subject to some bias. Still, that's the best source we have, and should be the primary way all of us get health care information. If you, as a patient, do not understand what the reasearch articles are about, bring them with you to your appointment.
In my clinic, I do not accept visits or items from drug reps (including glossy marketing materials, pens, etc); the only thing they can leave me is a copy of a peer-reviewed article.
I've never understood the logic behind prescription drug ads. The first rule of sales is to pitch the decision maker. You can't buy prescription drugs without a doctor's authorization, so basically the ads are asking people to go beg their doctors for medicine they may, or may not, need. The doctor, in turn, may give in to the patient's emotional pleas, since they are, in effect, in a customer service business. This…
Also, nitpick, but the news and ads in general are almost certainly far more harmful (for your daughter; perhaps you, too) than hearing about ED meds.
One of the arguments I've commonly heard against a ban like this is that pharmaceutical companies need to market their products because of the cost developing new drugs. However, this has turned into a strategy of expanding the medical uses of already approved drugs and then marketing the "new uses". Tylenol is the perfect example of this. Everyone "knows" that it reduces the risk of heart attacks, because of the mar…
Do you mean Aspirin?[1]
[1] http://www.scq.ubc.ca/should-i-take-tylenol-advil-or-aspirin...
One of the arguments I've commonly heard against a ban like this is that pharmaceutical companies need to market their products because of the cost developing new drugs. However, this has turned into a strategy of expanding the medical uses of already approved drugs and then marketing the "new uses". Tylenol is the perfect example of this. Everyone "knows" that it reduces the risk of heart attacks, because of the mar…
Wait what? Tylenol is acetaminophen, which is not associated with any heart benefit.
If anything long term use of paracetamol is possibly linked to a small increased risk of problems.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/03March/Pages/Is-long-term-parac...
I've never understood the logic behind prescription drug ads. The first rule of sales is to pitch the decision maker. You can't buy prescription drugs without a doctor's authorization, so basically the ads are asking people to go beg their doctors for medicine they may, or may not, need. The doctor, in turn, may give in to the patient's emotional pleas, since they are, in effect, in a customer service business. This…
In the US, the consumer drives a lot of the healthcare decisions. This has positives, as consumers can be more active participants in their health, but can also lead to people shopping for doctors who will prescribe the drugs that they want based on flimsy research and marketing. Additionally, this is a great backdoor way for consumers to be "educated" about conditions they didn't know they had. Consumers then would…
Turns out, people suck at being intelligent healthcare consumers. Its not their fault though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/upshot/why-consumers-often...
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21160
Disclaimer: I am a strong advocate for single payer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever sought a particular prescription from a doctor? Many general practitioners in the United States are glorified drug dealers. You will probably get whatever you ask for if you can afford the copay.
Disturbingly easy to get class II drugs without any proof of need.
I've never understood the logic behind prescription drug ads. The first rule of sales is to pitch the decision maker. You can't buy prescription drugs without a doctor's authorization, so basically the ads are asking people to go beg their doctors for medicine they may, or may not, need. The doctor, in turn, may give in to the patient's emotional pleas, since they are, in effect, in a customer service business. This…
"Surveys conducted by FDA and private organizations consistently show that DTC advertisements have an impact on whether consumers request and receive a specific brand-name prescription from their physician. [...] In several of these surveys, consumers were asked whether they had seen an advertisement for a prescription drug and whether seeing the advertisement resulted in discussing the medication with their doctor and receiving the prescription. Most consumers (65 to 85 percent) remembered seeing a DTC advertisement. A subset of consumers who saw an advertisement discussed the medication with their doctor. The percentage of patients asking their physicians about a prescription for a specific drug was consistent across studies, about 30 to 35 percent of those who remembered seeing a DTC advertisement. One study estimated that the 32 percent of consumers in a 2001 survey who had discussed a DTC advertisement with their doctor translated into approximately 61.1 million consumers asking about specific medications. In the consumer surveys we examined, the percentage of consumers who, in response to a DTC advertisement, requested and received a prescription from their physician for a drug they were not currently taking was generally about 5 percent (ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent). By our estimate, this means that about 8.5 million consumers received a prescription after viewing a DTC advertisement and asking their physician for the drug in 2000."
source: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03177.pdf
The data doesn't care whether or not you see the logic behind it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a doctor, and very into free speech, but the problem here is that in healthcare, patients' choices are paid with other people money.
As a healthy, single, white male who hasn't had a threatening reason to visit a doctor, This. I probably wouldn't have health insurance right now if it weren't for the Affordable Care Act (even though my employer pays most of it). Sure that could bite me in the ass if something were to happen to me, but I'm comfortable with that risk and have family to help me out. There's no good reason for me to "outsource" my heal…
Has it ever occurred to you don't have much control over that risk, and that you are a human being that like every other can become sick for no reason at all?
> and have family to help me out
Has it ever occurred to you that many people in the United States do not have family to help them out?
This is an issue for both doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Doctors hate it because patients may want a drug that's not optimal for them (but I saw if on TV) and it's bad for pharmaceuticals because they've had to become marketing machines, investing massive amounts of money into advertising and sales apps. The biggest issue with an outright ban is consumer education. Someone, something, or some organization need…
> Someone, something, or some organization needs to be responsible for properly communicating and educating consumers on a drug Why shouldn't this just be their doctor?