In the modern world of medicine, large pharmaceutical companies have often been part of a strong debate. The controversy concerning Big Pharma is about the marketing malpractices used by these large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in negative implications for consumers. In James Le Fanu’s book, The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, the existence of secrets held by the drug companies is highlighted. These secrets can be broken down into a group of four: (1) Drug companies underestimate side-effects that are dangerous to consumers, (2) Drug companies control the information doctors receive, (3) Patients are prescribed drugs they do not need, and (4) Drugs target symptoms, not causes. The Big Pharma controversy encompasses these secrets, which revolve around the pharmaceutical companies, government, consumers. This controversy exists between supporters of the marketing tactics used by pharmaceutical companies and the critics of these tactics. These secrets held by drug companies inevitably raise the question: Is it ethical for medical professionals to profit at the expense of the patients? A balance between the pros and cons of marketing tactics used by the pharmaceutical industry must be achieved if the system is to benefit all. To do this, it is important to consider the ethical issues pertaining to these tactics.
Numerous ethical dilemmas exist when examining the pharmaceutical industry’s tactics. This paper will serve to examine a mere few of these examples. Today’s world of medicine is dominated by industry, as physicians and patients alike rely on pharmaceutical companies to provide medications that address patient health concerns. Pharmaceutical companies intend to profit from the d...
... middle of paper ...
.../147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich>.
Petersen, Melody. Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.
Smith, Brendan L. "Inappropriate Prescribing." American Psychological Association. N.p., June 2012. Web. 07 Dec. 2013. .
Thompson, Dennis F. "Understanding Financial Conflicts of Interest." New England Journal of Medicine 329.8 (1993): 573-76.
Ventola, C. L. "Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising." Pharmacy and Therapetuics 36.10 (2011): 681-84.
Wazana, Ashley. "Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift?"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 55.8 (2000): 483-84.
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs, the marketing behind pills, and the use of media outlets.
Dr. John Abramson’s book Overdosed America debunks the myths about the excellence of American medicine. Abramson backs up this claim by closely examining research about medicine, closely examining the unpublished details submitted by drug manufacturers to the FDA, and discovering that the unpublished data does not coincide with the claims made about the safety and effectiveness of commonly used medicines. Abramsons purpose is to point out the flaws of the pharmaceutical industry in order to warn the readers about the credibility of the drugs they are buying. Given the critical yet technical language of the book, Abramson is writing to an audience that may include academic physicians as well as those who want to learn about the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.
Lyles, Adam. “Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers.” Annual Review of Public Health, volume 23. 2002. Print.
"In the past two decades or so, health care has been commercialized as never before, and professionalism in medicine seems to be giving way to entrepreneurialism," commented Arnold S. Relman, professor of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School (Wekesser 66). This statement may have a great deal of bearing on reality. The tangled knot of insurers, physicians, drug companies, and hospitals that we call our health system are not as unselfish and focused on the patients' needs as people would like to think. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly ruthless, many of them spending millions of dollars per year to convince doctors to prescribe their drugs and to convince consumers that their specific brand of drug is needed in order to cure their ailments. For instance, they may present symptoms that are perfectly harmless, and lead potential citizens to believe that, because of these symptoms, they are "sick" and in need of medication. In some instances, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States misleads both the public and medical professionals by participating in acts of both deceptive marketing practices and bribery, and therefore does not act within the best interests of the consumers.
DTC advertisements aim to persuade that their possibly less effective drugs work better than other drugs rather than to inform consumers of correct information about drugs. The reason that pharmaceutical companies abuse the power of DTC advertising is because the pharmaceutical industry does not have a strong ethical code for advertising; their sales are so obsessed with profits. To solve this problem, policy makers should prohibit indiscreet DTC advertisements on air and fund more informative services about new drugs so that patients could make clever
In 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed a ruling to allow direct marketing to consumers as long as the pharmaceutical companies included warnings about possible side effects and other dangers. This change allowed for print-based marketing such as magazines, but in 1997, the FDA lessened the requirement for detailed warnings. Furthermore, the FDA ruled that TV ads containing only the main dangers of the drug were permissible, and this resulted in an inundation of the direct-to-consumer advertising on television. “One study showed that for each dollar of direct-to-consumer advertising on TV by the pharmaceutical company during 1999-2000 resulted in a return of $4.20 for each dollar spent. By 2005, the pharmaceutical industry spent over one billion on TV ads” (DeGeorge 319). Based on these facts, the advertising is paying off for these large pharmaceutical companies.
For years, the price of drugs have been held in congress because the cost of pharmaceutical drugs is the most controversial aspect of this industry. Stuart Schweitzer, a professor of health policy and management at the University of California Los Angeles, author of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, comments on this topic. According to Schweitzer, consumers are more sensitive to drug prices more than the price other health services. Schweitzer states, “Consumers are more likely to complain about a $50 bottle of tablets than a $500 radiology procedure, or a $5000 hospital stay”. This may be due the fact that these procedure and hospital stays are less frequent than taking prescription medication that is needed continuous. Most patients are seeing multiple doctors and nurses, that is accounting for the cost. Whereas at a pharmacy, they only see the pharmacist for a consultation and then the patient goes home to take their medication. Consumers may expect this to be cheaper because they are not receiving extensive care. To bring a new drug onto the market in the 1990s, it costed $359 million compared to $1.7 billion in 2003. Pricing of most products is usually based on marginal cost, which is the change in the total cost that comes from producing one extra item. However, this is not the case with the pharmaceutical industry because if prices were based on marginal cost, drugs would be a lot more
1) This case provides background on DTC marketing for prescription drugs and also suggests that the use of this type of marketing is somewhat controversial. What ethical issues can you identify that might be of concern to patients, healthcare professionals, and pharmaceutical companies with regard to DTC marketing? Be specific.
Why do consumers purchase specific drugs for various ailments, sicknesses or diseases they might have? Why do physicians prescribe certain drugs over competitive drugs that may be available to the public? Why is it that most of us can easily name specific drugs that fit the many ailments of today’s society? On the surface the answer might be as simple as good TV advertising or radio commercials or even internet adds. The truth of matter is the major pharmaceutical manufacturers own the patents on these drugs and this gives them all of the marketing budget and muscle they need to promote the drug and control the pricing. The incentives for larger pharmaceutical companies are very enticing and as a result, they don’t mind spending the time in clinical trials and patent courts to get their drugs approved. Some will even get patents on the process by which the drug is manufactured, ensuring that no competitor can steal the drug or the process. This protects their large financial investment and nearly guarantees a large return for their investors. Many consumer rights groups claim this is nothing more than legalizing monopolies for the biggest manufacturers.
In America, it has become a battle to earn a high paying job to cope with the expenses of a typical American. It has become even more of a battle for some people to afford medical prescriptions to keep healthy. Health becomes a crucial issue when discussed among people. No matter what, at one point or another, everyone is going to stand as a victim of the pharmaceutical industry. The bottom line is Americans are paying excessive amounts of money for medical prescriptions. Health-Care spending in the U.S. rose a stunning 9.3% in 2002, which is the greatest increase for the past eleven years. (Steele 46) Many pharmaceutical companies are robbing their clients by charging extreme rates for their products.
Marketers operating in the drug industry have to push their products which then raises the ethical questions that surround the profession of medical delivery. Pharmaceutical companies disburse billions of dollars annually to research, develop, and market drugs. Every pharmacy company needs the endorsement of their drugs from physicians and doctors, so they have to ensure that the doctors are well treated. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, the pharmaceutical corporation spent over $27 billion on advertising alone in 2012, with $24 billion of that dedicated to marketing to physicians. (Kessel, 2014) A further survey conducted by Deloitte shows that 35% of the doctors accept some gratuity payment from the pharmacy companies and 16% of the doctors take money to represent the pharmacy company in conferences and health camps. (Kessel, 2014) The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education declares that pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies funded almost one-third of continuing medical education (CME) opportunities for doctors in 2011.( (Barnett, 1989)
Richard Epstein, a senior fellow at Hoover Institution writes, “The Cost of Prescription Drugs Is Justified"(2009), which defends the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs that are seen in today’s market. To start, Epstein acknowledges the widespread belief in America that pharmaceutical drugs cost too much. He discusses the rise of profits in drug companies in comparison to their success on Wall Street citing that companies such as Pfizer have had to cut-costs due to a lack of success in stocks. Then, Epstein focuses on four key ideas that help to explain the high cost. The first idea Epstein explores is the economics involved with drug-making. Drug companies earn most of their profits from one or two highly profitable drugs. The author claims that when generics or
“According to the General Accounting Office, more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1976 and 1985 caused serious side effects that later caused the drugs to be either relabeled or removed from the market. Drugs app...
Prescription drug prices rose three times faster than inflation in the decade between 1981 and 1991, making the pharmaceutical industry the nation's most profitable business. Prescription drugs even exceeded the rapidly rising inflation rate for all other medical services. They now represent at least 10% of all the medical costs in the United States.1
The Pharmaceutical Industry goals is to get as much profit incentive as possible through clinical trials, social networking, ads driving in a social movement in the demand for consumer goods. Patients have become more knowledgeable, demanding, and critical of medical care (Williams & Calman 1996). The internet has facilitated consumer involvement by offering easily accessible health-related information and providing a method for communication among like minded individuals (Hardey 2001). Medicalization from an analytical stand point is facilitated by the development of innovative technologies, consumer demands and the emergence of new medical markets in the hands of pharmaceutical enterprises. When medical products, services, or treatments are promoted to consumers to improve their health, appearance, or well-being, we see the development of medical market (Conrad & Leiter 2004).The race for cure, a Breast Cancer Awareness organization has been developed into a commodity for selling pink ribbons and bands. The awareness of Breast cancer is not being fully recognized by those who may not be knowledgeable of the treatments, mammograms, screening and essentially anything cancer related if the focus is on the marketing of products. Oftentimes, these corporations, sponsors, pharmaceuticals are concern with capitalizing on the health of the patience through empowering ads, to maximizing profits. Through private and