70% of drugs advertised on TV are of “low therapeutic value,” study finds | Hacker News Reader

70% of drugs advertised on TV are of “low therapeutic value,” study finds

arstechnica.com

26 pointsMBCook12 comments

Well, yeah, that's why they spend money to advertise them. If they were effective drugs, they'd sell well without any pushing.

As someone who worked for a biotech company you’d be shocked how uninformed doctors can be.

That's exactly why ads are pushed on TV, is it not? They're called direct to consumer but they really aren't for the consumer...they're for doctors to consciously or subconsciously gain a favorable opinion about the drug by hearing about it frequently.

No, it’s patient advertising. That’s why it includes messages “ask your doctor about”.

There is separate physician marketing that is much more sophisticated.

Look at the FDA research on it including a survey of doctor on the impact.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients...

“Most physicians agreed that because their patient saw a DTC ad, he or she asked thoughtful questions during the visit. About the same percentage of physicians thought the ad made their patients more aware of possible treatments.”

New drugs are being developed to replace existing ones that are still effective, with the intention of bypassing expiring patents. And of course, these new drugs get all of the advertising budget.

This is according to what I have heard.

Another example:the active ingredient in the sleep remedy pushed on TV by Huckabee (US guy who ran for US president) is just melatonin. You can the same effect for way cheaper.

I check GoodRX drug costs for all advertised drugs as I notice them on TV. Most are between $3000-$6000 per month.

Has anyone here lived in both the US and New Zealand?

Can you comment on how drug ads are similar or different in the two countries?

I live in NZ. Haven't lived in the US but spent lots of time there for work which included TV in various hotel rooms.

One of the biggest and starkest differences I noted was the drug advertising on US TV, both in quantity and content. I feel in NZ there's minimal drug advertising and when there is it's restricted to things like panadol and acid reflux stuff. US would advertise for just about everything ( lots of depression/mental health drug ads), all with the refrain of "ask your Dr about xxx".

It was so jarring that I often joke with my American friends that "in NZ, our Dr tells us what to take" rather than the other way round

Thanks, that’s exactly the kind of thing I wanted to know.

that applies to anything though.

the more marketing it has, the more it has to compensate for (IMO).

Not at all.

It’s basically “if we spend $X on advertising, does that increase revenue by at least $X? if so advertise”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com