(no title)
a_puppy | 1 year ago
From a profit point of view, presumably the advertising department pays for itself; in other words, the advertising department generates money for the R&D department, rather than taking money from the R&D department.
But, the advertising presumably increases the number of people taking the drug. If it's teaching patients/doctors about a valuable new drug that will make peoples' lives better, then it's a social good. But if it's persuading patients/doctors to buy the drug unnecessarily, then it's a waste.
(Also, sometimes two pharma companies have competing drugs that are basically equivalent. So they get trapped in a "Red Queen's race" where they both spend money on advertising to try to gain market share. In the end they've both spent a bunch of money on ads and ended up back where they started. For those cases, banning marketing would be a clear win.)
Edit: Also, keep in mind that "ban/regulate pharma advertising" is a different proposal than "medicare negotiation".
sudosysgen|1 year ago
If someone is sick, they've likely been diagnosed by a doctor, who will treat them. This is how the consumer will know at all they might want to take the drug.
So the effect of the advertisement is to change the course of treatment as the consumer will ask their doctor for that drug ("ask your doctor if $drug is right for you"), and a doctor needs to prescribe it to begin with.
So the "Red Queen's Race" is not a sometimes. It's in fact almost always the situation at hand, generally between multiple courses of treatment.
We can observe from countries with no prescription drug advertising and similar levels of development that health outcomes are broadly similar. So we can be quite confident that this kind of advertising doesn't lead to significantly more appropriate treatment in aggregate, and it's therefore most likely to be a race to the bottom.
a_puppy|1 year ago