Both physicians and consumers/patients rely on the Pharmaceutical industry to adequately provide medication to address public health concerns ranging from depression to obesity, to name a few. Thus, an increased reliance on pharmaceutical industries leads to the creation of one of the largest and most profitable corporations to exist across the world. However, because pharmaceutical companies profit from the drugs they sell, they now have incentives to influence the public in buying the drugs they produce; the main objective of pharmaceutical companies then becomes primarily to maximize profit through the selling of drugs and disregard the well-being of the population (Moynihan and Mintzes 2010, 2). Thus, Pharmaceutical companies work to market …show more content…
Key themes analyzed in the production of the pharmaceutical market and influence include: (i) Media influence and Pharmaceuticals; (ii) Pharmaceutical gifts; (iii) free drug samples + pharmaceutical marketing; (iv) domestication of pharmaceutical consumptions; (v) disease inflation; (vi) celebrity drug endorsements. The paper argues that Pharmaceutical companies are influencing both patients and physicians through the themes listed above, to create patient/consumer dependency on drugs, while subconsciously creating drug prescribing behaviors into physician minds’ in order to make trillions worth of revenues from drug …show more content…
Connor (2009) presents a balanced argument by examining both positives and negatives of the distribution of free sample drugs; However, her research shows the negative consequences outweighing the positive and for this essay the negative consequences will be examined. Connor argues that samples allow “individuals to seek immediate relief, but encourage consumers to seek out brand-name products, thereby creating long-term dependencies on these drugs” (260). Connor’s argument applied to my optometry visits from 2007-current (2017) proves to be true; after each visit, my optometrist provides me with samples of eye-drops, while encouraging me to buy the full-sized bottle after the sample finishes either from his office or the drugstore. From personal experience, every physician/optometrist/dental office I have visited has samples of some drugs. On a similar note, Crestor, a popular cholesterol reducing drug, advertises a 30-day free trial offer, however after thirty days’ patients will develop a subconscious dependence/trust in Crestor (261). By the end of her argument, Connor shows how patients can become attached to sample/trial drugs such as Crestor for example; this ensures that patients will continue using the drugs for indefinite periods of
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.
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.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing of pharmaceuticals has grown increasingly in the past decade. The American public views prescription drug advertising for a wide range of medical conditions, including high cholesterol, depression, allergies, and erectile dysfunction. The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the content of these advertisements. Critics also have taken the position that the advertisements garner unearned trust from the public, are misleading, and promote unnecessary use of prescription drugs for common problems associated with aging. Proponents counter that DTC ads help eliminate stigmas associated with certain medical conditions, give patients an active role in their health care management, and encourages the doctor/patient relationship. There have been calls for bans on DTC pharmaceutical advertising, but the practice is protected under a business’s right to free speech. Regulation changes, particularly requiring the FDA to pre-approve marketing campaigns before they are released to the public, may be one way to appease opponents, while protecting the rights of pharmaceutical manufacturers to advertise to the average American consumer.
"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 United States of America accounts for only 5% of the world’s population, yet as a nation, we devour over 50% of the world’s pharmaceutical medication and around 80% of the world’s prescription narcotics (American Addict). The increasing demand for prescription medication in America has evoked a national health crisis in which the government and big business benefit at the expense of the American public.
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads are dangerous and can have serious effects on the health of the general public. In the article “Pros & Cons Arguments: ‘Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?’”, the pros and cons of the advertising of prescription drugs are compared. The negative aspects of these ads outweigh the positives. DTC prescription drug ads misinform patients, promote over-use, and pressure medical providers. The counter side argues that these ads inform patients, create a positive impact on patient compliance with medication, and cause patients to confront their doctors.
On Chapter 7, Frances describes ways the diagnostic inflation can be tamed. He stated, “We are spending a fortune fighting the losing war against illegal drugs, while barely lifting a finger to fight an easily winnable war against the misuse of legal grips”(p. 211). Before reading this book, I would have never imagined that we had a problem with people being prescribed an excessive amount of drugs they do not need. I agreed with Frances when he mentioned ways big pharma could be tamed such as reducing or removing advertisements on televisions, magazines or internet. Advertisements are very powerful and pharmaceutical companies have snuck their way into the homes of individuals. While I was reading France’s ideas, I agreed with a lot of them, but I felt that the people are still
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.
Interpersonal communication is described by Schiavo as a multi-faceted influenced concept. With cultural, community and literacy on the forefront of consideration, these are the means influencing perceived information (Schiavo, 2007). The perception of information can be altered by technology-mediated communication. The article I choose to review was designed to look at the direct to consumer product- specific television prescription drug advertisements during 2001.As the public spends numerous hours viewing television and is easily influenced with the numerous advertisements. Many of the drug advertisements have intent to effect health and specific diagnostic awareness. The current direction of health communication is that of empowerment of the rights of patients (Schiavo, 2007).
Manufacturers that sell dangerous medications can face government fines, as well as lawsuits from injured consumers. Experienced attorneys recognize that the only message these companies understand are ones that affect their pocketbook. The manufacturers of popular drugs all have had to pay the price for their dangerous actions at one time or another.]”
In recent years’ health reform has been a driving force in the United States political system. If you watch the news, you will understand how citizens, the government, or the economy are or might be affected by some sort of change in medical regulation. One of these hot topic issues is the cost of prescription drugs. Every major drug market besides the United States regulates the price of drugs in some way (Abbott and Vernon). By the United States not doing so, many believe it opens consumers up to being exploited by large pharmaceutical companies.
It is also easy to see the American people’s infatuation with drugs by simply looking at our current number of prescriptions filled at pharmacies annually. An active data table hosted by The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation states that about four billion prescriptions are filled annually (Kaiser). This is enough prescriptions for every person in the country, children and adults, to have twelve each. Once a person is on a drug, it is often hailed as an immediate fix to the problem, but many don’t think or just don’t care about the long-term side effects it could hold.
Healthcare executives’ dilemma over drug pricing reminds me of Goldilocks, the little girl whose porridge was either too hot or too cold until she found something that was “just right.” Like Goldilocks, pharmaceutical executives are struggling for the perfect solution to pricing drugs that are affordable to the public but profitable for their producers. Payers, patients, and even politicians have increasingly focused on high drug prices. Manufacturers blame high prices on government regulations, shareholder expectations, and the complexity of biology. But discovering new drugs costs money: who will pay for it?
In accordance to the world drug report in 2010, “the misuse of prescription drugs, including opioids, benzodiazepines, and synthetic prescription stimulants, is a growing health problem in a number of developed and developing countries.” An overdosage can occur both by the obtaining of legitimized prescriptions or by obtaining drugs that was not prescribed. The issue is rather complex because the root of the problem is very disputable. The difficulty in preventing diversion while ensuring accessibility to those who need it for medical purpose proposes the complication of establishing an effective policy on prescription drug abuse. Policy makers or those with the appropriate authority must go through complicated procedures to exactly pinpoint improper or illegitimate prescribing. An existence gap in tracking the distribution of prescription drugs allows for diversion to individuals not prescribed with the following medication. Close monitoring covers more towards illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Therefore, monitoring non-medical use of prescription drugs is a special case that requires attention in an inventive level. This issue requires immediate attention because not only that there is a rapid increase in the use of these medications, but younger consumers are also turning to this manner. As a matter of fact, 2.6% of people aged 12 years or older have reported using prescription drug non medically in 2005. Within the 12 to 17 years age group, females are more likely to use prescription drugs in a non-medical context than males. The future of the United States is at stake especially when younger individuals are growing into a ‘pill popping culture’ where non-medical use of prescription drugs is already a cultural norm. Most life issues are treated through medication along with the