I suppose this doesn't happen in the United Kingdom and other places where television is commercial-free, but in the good old U S of A commercials are ubiquitous (for readers in Alabama, that means everywhere) and thus a never-ending source of irritation.
Commercials that particularly offend my sensibilities are the ones hawking the wares of the big pharmaceutical companies, telling viewers to "ask your doctor about" this medicine or that. Here is a list of just a few of them that I gathered last evening in the short space of three hours:
vraylar
latuda
ozempic
dupixent
solara
ingrezza
prolia
tepezza
entresto
xeljanz
kerasal
nurtec odt
fasenra
opdivo + yervoy
jardiance
rinvoq
sunos
nuplazid
and there are many others I could name if I had the patience to sit and wait for them to appear.
Because they will [appear]. But I don't [have the patience].
I will put what really galls me, sets me off, "gets my goat" about these commercials into the form of a question.
Why do the makers of these drugs -- known affectionately or otherwise as Big Pharma -- market them directly to the great unwashed hordes of viewers (i.e., the patients) instead of to the medical community (i.e., the ones who do the actual prescribing of the aforementioned drugs)? Why?
It makes no sense. I suppose the answer is that this method works for their company's bottom line, or as both Cuba Gooding Jr. and Thomas Cruise Mapother IV said in the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire, "Show me the money". Other lines from that film include "You had me at hello" and "You complete me" but they are not germane to this post.
I would no more dream of asking my doctor about various possible medicinal remedies for what ails me than I would perform surgery. After all, the doctor is the one who went to school for all those years and spent all the money for tuition and deferred any compensation for a decade and gathered all the knowledge that makes it possible for him or her to make the big bucks today. (Again, this is a foreign concept to readers in the U.K., where they have the NHS).
Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments. Your theories are as valid as mine. Probably more so.
I couldn't agree with you more. After working in a medical office for nearly 18 years I can tell you these drug companies certainly do market the drugs directly to the physicians on a daily basis when they can get away with it. The companies also spend a fortune in providing lunches and other things to the medical offices to get their attention, or at least they did and I am guessing they still do so. Marketing to the patients is just another way of increasing their money coming in and many patients do ask their doctors for the medications they see on the commercials. I can also tell you the doctors probably hate those commercials more than anyone. The cost of making those commercials is just one of many reasons that the U.S. has the most expensive prescriptions in the world! A LOT needs to change with Big Pharma!
ReplyDeleteBonnie, interesting!
DeleteFortunately we don't get those ads. Or, if we do, I haven't seen them.
ReplyDeleteEC/Sue, you are more fortunate than you know. We are (or at least I am) driven crazy by them.
DeleteYou forgot to mention the 'cutsie' conditions you should tell your doctor to prescribe these medicines to treat. I mean Hep-C sounds like the name of a dance for goodness sake.
ReplyDeleteEmma, hepatitis C is not cute, it is a very serious matter. I think the ads use nicknames to mute from the viewer how bad something can really be, like saying “DVT” instead of “deep vein thrombosis” for instance.
DeleteMy point exactly. There is nothing cute about having a condition that needs medical attention. Why they insist on using those euphemisms is beyond my understanding and patience.
DeleteThe problem here is to get to speak to a doctor let alone see one.
ReplyDeleteAdrian, that is a problem of a whole different kind and a on a whole different level.
DeleteI agree with you. I could do without those commercials as I have no intention of asking my dr if whatever medicine is right for me.
ReplyDeleteThat bathtub commercial annoys me; who sits in bathtubs outside.
Kathy, every one of them irritates me.
ReplyDelete"Why do the makers of these drugs (companies) market them directly to the great unwashed hordes of viewers (i.e., the patients) instead of to the medical community." The answer is that they spend millions on exceptionally highly qualified and paid reps to sell their use to medics directly. I have two acquaintances with exceptional lifestyles to prove it. (I see that Bonnie has already made this point).
ReplyDeleteOn your general points though I agree with you absolutely and would be very irritated if that type of marketing happened overtly on the television here.
Graham, that type of marketing is the very air we breathe over here. Everyone considers it normal and accepts it without question, and that is the most irritating thing of all. Thank you, capitalism!
ReplyDeleteWe do have lots of commercial television here, in fact the BBC is the only channel without adverts, however we do not have pharmaceutical companies advertising their wares. As I have never seen this type of advert I have no idea how I would react. Part of me thinks I would like to know what is available however I am all for leaving the doctor to decide what is best as he/she has trained for the job. But I don't go near doctors unless I really have to and they come low down in my trust spectrum these days in any case so I am unable to form any opinions about your post. I am happier to pay for my medical treatment than trust the NHS doctors who will not necessarily give you the best drugs available because they will be worrying about cost.
ReplyDeleteRachel, you and Adrian are about the only two bloggers I know of who do not sing the praises of the NHS. Here in the U.S. it is cited as a horror story of what happens when socialism takes over. So I for one tend to listen closely to what you and Adrian have to say about it.
DeleteMy response to Rachel's point about the NHS doctor worrying about cost is twofold: firstly he is spending public money (some people can't afford private treatment) so should not be profligate and secondly, generally, those I know are far more concerned that they get you better regardless of cost. It might also be said that a private specialist will prescribe unnecessarily expensive drugs (or, more usually, brands rather than generic drugs) where, for example the pharmacy is attached to his/her practice. The same can, of course, be said of an NHS practitioner.
DeleteMy observation on your point, Bob, about the NHS being a horror story of what happens when socialism takes over (which, of course, I regard as nonsense) is that every person I know personally from North America who has either lived here and experienced our NHS or worked in it or simply experienced it as a visitor has had nothing but praise for it. A childhood friend who worked in a private hospital in North America regaled me frequently with tales of people whose insurance ran out because of the treatment they had received who were unceremoniously dumped. My Godfather's brother had the same experience. He had first class cancer treatment until the money ran out and he was sent home to die. But then I suppose that is one of the benefits of capitalism. If you don't have the money you are dispensable. Why should other people pay for your care?
I agree with Graham, and of course my other half has worked at the heart of the NHS for thirty years, so I know how the whole thing ticks. The reason the drugs are limited is down to lack of funding from the dear government. People acts as though the NHS isn't run by them, and it's peddled that way in the right wing media. Take away the NHS and I would be dead, I could never have afforded the drugs I need to be alive and if I lived in the U.S I'd be pushing up daisies too. I know of many people on forums who live there and are dying slow but sure in terrible pain because they can't afford the drugs they need, their insurance won't cover them. If you can have good free healthcare why on earth would you be against making it just that rather than scrapping it and paying privately? It's beyond me, the private clinics fleece people happily, not all of them but some do. If you want to pay private go wild but civilisation as a word only exists if we treat the sick and the poor for free, not cut them out of the deal completely. It isn't socialism, it's basic humanity.
DeleteGraham, what you say is always important and well-thought-out, so I listen closely to what you have to say as well.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say “North America” do you mean Canada primarily or do you include the U.S.? I think nowadays our Regional hospitals in the U.S. are not allowed by federal law to turn any patient away, even indigent ones. It was different a few years (decades?) back. however.
I was sure that I'd responded to this but as you have a new post and no reply has appeared I assume I got sidetracked again. For the record the people I know who have worked in and used our NHS have been from the USA. My childhood friend worked in Canadian hospitals (mainly run by a religious order) but had experience in the US too. My Godfather's brother was in Canada but many years ago. My childhood friend said things hadn't changed that much.
Delete