The Little Purple Pill That Could
So, the drug advertisers may be facing more scrutiny. Probably won't mean many changes, though. Pharmaceutical companies hold pretty big sway in DC. What do you think about drug companies' direct to consumer advertising? We all witnessed how hard Merck pushed Vioxx, a drug that had some hefty side effects. And recently the Food and Drug Administration told Amgen to stop running commercials for Enbrel, a treatment for the skin disease psoriasis. The F.D.A. said the ads downplayed "serious risks" associated with the drug.
As a former health care marketer (and advertiser), I know that there's a side of the argument that says you shouldn't be spending dollars that sick people desperately need for care and cures. (How many weightloss surgery ads do we really need in Los Angeles, huh?)On the other hand, advertising helps educate and illuminate. As a woman of a certain age, I want to know my options for preventing osteoporosis and all those other nasty things that happen after –ah hem – a certain age. And say what you will about all those ads for anti-depressants. It certainly brings the prevalence of the problem to light.
If all that money wasn't spent on advertising, I have no doubt that big pharma would find some other way to market (beyond the usual junkets, etc.). Until this country adopts some form of socialized medicine, pharmaceutical companies will continue to make big dollars in America.
