Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#111

Post by refurb »

raheemm wrote: post #61
refurb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may come as a shock to you, but marketing pharmaceuticals is really no different than marketing other products. It really comes down to educating consumers about your product. Doctors as decision makers are not some monolithic block of individuals who are super educated about every product on the market and every piece of data. Just developing awareness of new drugs is a huge job. I'd say less than 5% of doctors…

You make a good point. I wonder how is drug marketing handled in places like EU. How do their doctors learn of new drugs and decide which meds to prescribe?

Talking to my European colleagues, it’s not that different from the US (although the specific rules can differ).

Personal and non-personal promotion is how it’s done in Europe.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#112

Post by m463 »

refurb wrote: post #60
mr_crankypants wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that pharmaceutical companies' marketing departments have a deep conflict of interest. They're incentivized to encourage doctors to use the drug that makes their company the most profit, not the drug that is best for the patient. And there is plenty of research demonstrating that this is exactly what they do, and that doctors are indeed swayed by it, because, as you say, they don't have the time t…

My counter to your comment, and my own personal experience, is that doctors are fully aware of the manufacturers conflict of interest. They know that the drug companies will present everything in the best possible light. Other things that exist to counter this bias are competitors, who will provide a different perspective and most importantly, the FDA that regulates all pharmaceutical promotion for accuracy and will…

You should read "the honest truth about dishonesty" by dan ariely where scientific studies of conflicts of interest found folks fall for this stuff unconsciously and repeatably.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#113

Post by vonmoltke »

cj wrote: post #101
umvi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This includes both medicinal and recreational drugs. Make all drugs legal, but mandate they have boring text/information-only labels, put the more dangerous ones behind the counter in smaller quantities, and let the only thing influencing their purchase be doctor recommendations/prescriptions or personal research. It should apply evenly fr…

> I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This is already the case in many places outside the USA (Canada, Europe, Brazil, Hong Kong). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising

GP is talking about all drugs, not just prescription drugs.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#114

Post by vonmoltke »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52
refurb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may come as a shock to you, but marketing pharmaceuticals is really no different than marketing other products. It really comes down to educating consumers about your product. Doctors as decision makers are not some monolithic block of individuals who are super educated about every product on the market and every piece of data. Just developing awareness of new drugs is a huge job. I'd say less than 5% of doctors…

Not all marketing is "educating consumers about your product". Some of it is manufacturing a desire for your product. Look at car ads. Do they say "The new 2019 models are available"? A few do. Do they say "This car gets better gas mileage" or "This car is safer"? A few do. Most say "If you drive this car, you'll get the hot girl". That's not "educating consumers". That's trying to make consumers want your product on…

> Look at car ads. Do they say "The new 2019 models are available"? A few do. Do they say "This car gets better gas mileage" or "This car is safer"? A few do. Most say "If you drive this car, you'll get the hot girl". That's not "educating consumers". That's trying to make consumers want your product on the basis of something completely unrelated to your product.

You and I must be watching different commercials, because I see far more of the former.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#115

Post by Analemma_ »

tynpeddler wrote: post #104
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

>The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. This is far to simplistic. It's fairly common for doctors to be unaware or poorly informed on new or uncommon treatments. They have a finite amount of time and brainpower and are not all knowing.

Most other first-world countries have banned drug advertisements, and they appear to be doing just fine. Actually, they appear to be doing significantly better than we are: no opioid crisis.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#116

Post by markdown »

cj wrote: post #101
umvi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This includes both medicinal and recreational drugs. Make all drugs legal, but mandate they have boring text/information-only labels, put the more dangerous ones behind the counter in smaller quantities, and let the only thing influencing their purchase be doctor recommendations/prescriptions or personal research. It should apply evenly fr…

> I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This is already the case in many places outside the USA (Canada, Europe, Brazil, Hong Kong). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising

I believe the list is shorter if you make it about which countries allow direct-to-consumer advertising:

USA, New Zealand.

That's it.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#117

Post by markdown »

swsieber wrote: post #106
sokoloff wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that almost immediately ends up in a morass of private information web sites, none of which are as trustworthy as current FDA-regulated labeling. Do you prefer Instagram "influencers" to have more control over what drugs people take than the current regulated advertising? I don't.

I don't think they would. Do they currently have instagram drug influencer in Europe, where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is illegal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising

> where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is illegal?

The US and New Zealand are the only countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is legal.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#118

Post by r00fus »

slenk wrote: post #74
foolbiter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?

There are 20-some people running...I wouldn't call them a presidential candidate yet...more like presidential hopefuls. And because big pharma seems to always win.

They are technically all candidates. The winner of the primary is a nominee.

Pharma gets what they pay for. Vote for someone who isn't beholden to them.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#119

Post by UnFleshedOne »

davidivadavid wrote: post #98
dooglius wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think advertising promotes innovation? I would see it as the other way around, why innovate when you can just invest more into advertising an inferior product?

Because consumers aren't stupid and that doesn't work, probably? Because your competitor will gladly advertise their more innovative and better product, and yours will look inferior?

If you drug looks inferior to competitor's ad, you will get better return by hiring a better ad agency, not a researching a better drug (that's a crap shot at best times).

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#120

Post by sverige »

happytoexplain wrote: post #12
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society. This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - where nearly everybody agrees loudly and strongly with it except the wealthy and powerful. I wish a presidential candidate would have the balls to echo this severe but obviously popular thought and fix the fucking system with extreme prejudice.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN