|
Canada's Food and Drug Act currently prohibits advertising of
prescription drugs to the public. But the legislation is under review, and this
development understandably has benefits professionals nervous.
General Motors Corp. of Detroit is an example of what could
happen in Canada if the rules change. The automaker says over the past three years,
92% of members who were prescribed Prilosec--an ulcer medication heavily advertised
in the U.S.--had never visited a doctor for gastro-intestinal problems prior to
getting the expensive treatment. GM says members are being given a pricey
medication before other therapies simply because it is well marketed to
them.
Direct-to-consumer advertising is only permitted in the U.S.
and New Zealand today, but the pharmaceutical industry wants to expand its reach.
It argues that marketing drugs to the public raises awareness and results in better
informed consumers. The industry also wants to give consumers news on Canadian drug
approvals, so they won't have to rely on U.S. ads for information.
The benefits industry sees things differently. The Employers
Committee on Heath Care in Ontario says drug plan costs will climb if Ottawa
loosens restrictions. These costs are rising at about 15% a year in Canada and 20%
in the U.S. The difference is attributed largely to direct-to-consumer advertising.
The Canadian Medical Association and the Consumers' Association of Canada are also
opposed to consumer drug marketing.
Marg French, a consultant with William M. Mercer Ltd. in
Toronto, says drug companies are already finding ways to get around the ad
legislation in Canada. For example, she says they run ads on TV and in magazines on
a health condition with a toll-free line or Web site linked to the drug
maker.
French says that these efforts, combined with drug ads that
Canadians see in American magazines sold on our own newsstands, is having a "huge
impact" on prescribing habits and drug sales in Canada. "People are going into
their doctors' offices with predetermined remedies," she adds.
Meanwhile, the promotion of prescription drugs to U.S.
consumers is becoming more aggressive. The pharmaceutical industry spent US$2.5
billion on advertising its products to American consumers last year, up from US$1.8
billion in 1999. Newer and expensive drugs are promoted the most. A drug for
baldness and one for smoking cessation are among the top seven products in terms of
dollars spent on consumer advertising in the U.S. for 1999.
The pace of drug sales is keeping up with ad dollars. Retail
pharmacies south of the border dispensed 7.5% more prescriptions in 2000 than in
1999. A U.S. study by the National Institute for Health Care Management says
"Americans are demanding, and physicians are prescribing, a higher volume of
medicines every year." Critics of direct-to-consumer advertising argue that this
research shows that marketing prescription drugs to consumers leads to overuse and
misuse of drugs.
We can't blame the pharmaceutical industry for trying to
communicate directly to its consumers. The sector is a profit-driven business with
shareholders to please. But the big difference between pharma companies and other
manufacturers is that you need a prescription from a physician to use their
products.
It makes all the sense in the world then that the medical
community remain the gatekeeper of drugs. Advertising should be restricted to
physicians as well as plan sponsors who need to understand what drugs plan members
are taking. BC
Kathryn Dorrell is managing editor with Benefits
Canada.
kdorrell@rmpublishing.com.
|
News
News
