The field of medical and health welfare is heavily influenced by the term pharmaceutical promotion. This refers to the persuasive activities performed by the distributors and manufacturers of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical promotions are performed to encourage the supply, purchase, prescription, and use of different medical drugs. This promotion is crucial to stimulate prescription rates and generate the sales of pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical promotion affects a wide range of crucial elements, like the drug price-control techniques, drug distribution equity, prescription rates, use of important drugs and most importantly the cost of the overall Health care system. So, pharmaceutical promotion is a matter of public health concern. Pharmaceutical …show more content…
The term new drug is considered in most studies as a drug that has been newly innovated, but a newly marketed drug is a drug that has been approved and introduced into the market and is ready for precautional use. But new drugs include drugs that can be enhanced from a previous version or drugs that existed previously and now has been introduced to new elements of manufacturing. Newly marketed drugs can also be chemically similar to previously approved drugs. Some drugs are very similar chemically and cause the same effects on patients, but due to different promotional strategies, similar drugs can have different market values. But in most literature and studies only highly innovative and unique drugs are considered as pharmaceutical innovations. Pharmaceutical innovation is a crucial element of the public health care system. Studies show that 60% HCRs are highly influenced by unique drugs and are more likely to prescribe them to the patients, regardless the cost or expense. So, pharmaceutical innovation is a key driving factor of prescription rates. There is also a wide range of key factors that determine the uptake of the new drug by HCRs. These key factors are important because: Firstly, it speeds up dispersal. Around different regions, companies manufacture several new drugs each year, but most of the time their implementation is delayed. It is because different clinics …show more content…
That means, drugs that are known to be more effective are generally favored by prescribers. So what makes them prescribe a new drug instead of the old ones? In this regard, (Lublóy, 2014) suggested that when there is not enough alternatives in the market, when the new drug offers an obvious therapeutic over the existing alternatives, and when there is even a little bit of peer pressure, doctors tend to prescribe new drugs. Previous literatures and studies have shown a cautionary approach in recommending new drugs. That is why, many users and patients are becoming unwilling to adapt to new drugs. Analysis shows this fear and negligence come from potential unknown side effects and previous experiences of some hostile side effects that some patients might have faced. This is why global pharmaceuticals tend to consult hospital and medical experts to test and promote their drugs, so that it gains adaptability among patients. Medical consultants however, are very confident and eager in using new drugs, because they are more aware for medical innovation that is happening and seem to believe that new marketed drugs can improve their patients’ health status. Different studies show that different influences that affect drug choice. A list of these influences would
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 recent years the drug industry underwent a significant transformation. Many of the big companies generate high revenues, which allow them to expand. Some of them expand on their own others through mergers and the buying of smaller companies.
"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
The percentages of the two surveys prove that a greater percentage of doctors believe that prescription drug ads misinform patients. These ads misinform patients, encourage over-medication, and pressure doctors and medical providers. The counter side states that prescription drug ads educate patients, encourage the correct usage of drugs, and cause patients to ask their doctors about possible treatments. Both sides have examples and evidence, but the cons of prescription drug ads are stronger.
Doctors work under intense pressure, and if a pill could fix a patient’s problems than many saw nothing wrong with that. What exacerbated the problem was that many hospitals also changed their modus operandi with regards to treatment. In some hospitals, “doctors were told they could be sued if they did not treat pain aggressively, which meant with opiates (95). However once the patient became addicted and could no longer get their prescription legally refilled, the drug dealers saw their chance. What is surprising is the fact that pharmaceutical companies acted in the same manner as drug dealers. Both sides did not care about the end user, and the problems they would have to deal with after using what was given to them. Their motive was purely to profit as much as possible, and they did not care about who would get hurt as a result of their
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 and the efficient usage of media outlets.
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.
both the benefit and risk of all medication before approval.. In addition, FDA makes the labeling
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.
Furthermore, their regulatory measure can quickly eliminate ineffective drugs from the market. Also, it can promote price competition between pharmaceutical companies by providing information on benefits and side-effects of drugs to patients. Moreover, as we covered in class, complementary measure was introduced such as fast track designation which expedites development and review of drugs that address unmet medical need in the treatment of serious or life-threatening
This fact validates the incentive pharmaceutical companies have to get a patent and acquire more power. Pfizer encourages R&D because of the incentives and a desire to obtain patents to receive more profit. Pfizer has to promote itself to be successful, creating a brand image that consumers will trust. If the company can advertise successfully, more consumers will purchase their products. Pfizer must also be generating products efficiently in order to save and use existing resources, while manufacturing their products at low costs to stay competitive....
For a drug to get to market it must go through several stages of research and development (Abbott and Vernon). Starting with discovery research, preclinical testing on animals, three phases of clinical trials on humans, and finally FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval (Abbott and Vernon). Out of several thousands of drugs only a few will make it to the FDA approval stage (Abbott and Vernon). Testing is a highly regulated, time consuming, and expensive process. From beginning to end the process can take fifteen years and less than one of five compounds will make it to market where it is still not guaranteed to succeed (Abbott and