Drug Promotion in the United Kingdom and Sweden: A Study of Pharmaceutical Industry Self-Regulation – Case 4
In many European countries and the UK, drug promotion is controlled by codes of practice managed by the pharmaceutical industry under a system known as self-regulation (Mulinari, Merlo and Zetterqvist 2015). Self-regulation is often voluntary since the pharmaceutical industry is able to design and follow its own set of rules. The UK and Sweden are the two countries frequently praised for their effective self-regulation (Mulinari, Merlo and Zetterqvist 2015).
One of the advantages of comparing the UK and Sweden is that these two countries have similar self-regulatory schemes (Mulinari, Merlo and Zetterqvist 2015).Both countries are
…show more content…
Consequently, this led to 28 serious violations which constitute 28% of total drug promotion violations in the UK. Discredit and confidence cases also had 92 case breaches; however, by percentage they constituted a higher number of serious violations than any other category. Discredit and confidence represented 92 of a total of 100 serious violations. Market authorization (promotion of a drug prior to marketing approval) indicated 88 case breaches which resulted in 20 serious …show more content…
The industry has not been able to stop itself from partaking in multiple and sometimes highly unethical practices. There is a lack of restraint when it comes to market authorization and information violations. The interpretation of this data only leads the public to think that the consequences for all those violations are too low. Evidently, the fines and charges incurred by pharmaceutical companies’ average about 0.014% (Sweden) and 0.005% (UK) of estimated yearly revenues (Mulinari, Merlo and Zetterqvist 2015). These regulations and consequences only serve the private interests in both the UK and Sweden. Furthermore, charges in the UK and Sweden should not be designed to damage corporations financially; nevertheless, the fines need to serve as a deterrent to unethical behaviour which can impact prescribing practices of medical professionals. Also, as a last measure, regulators should consider using non-economic measures such as publications which can lead to damaging the reputation of the pharmaceutical company. Contrary to popular belief, self-regulation at many times can serve the private interest of corporations as there are no barriers or consequences to
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.
Lyles, Adam. “Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers.” Annual Review of Public Health, volume 23. 2002. Print.
As per WHO "The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%. Six are based in the United States and four in Europe. Companies currently spend one-third of all sales revenue on marketing their products - roughly twice what they spend on research and development."
"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
There is a debate on whether direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is moral. These drug companies believe they are providing consumer awareness for patients potentially suffering illnesses, while critics argue that patients demand particular drugs from their doctor while there might be
The current Food and Drugs Regulations appear quite solid. Definitions are made for a variety of terms such as “daily value”, and rules are made with very specific scopes, breaking down stakeholders (consumers, producers/retailers) into groups so that there is s...
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.
It is said that name-brand prescription drugs in Canada cost approximately 40% less than they do in America. But it is illegal for the transport of drugs from Canada to America. Why? It is because Pharmaceuticals are simply greedy and prey on victims that are in need of their products to survive. It makes it hard for large households on a budget to purchase drugs to keep healthy. The way pharmaceutical companies look at their clients is like this: It is a life or death situation for them so the customers have to buy it in order to survive. According to the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry, expectedly, made it at the top of the list of the most profitable. The top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more profit-money than the top seven media companies, the top seven airline companies, the top seven oil companies, and the top seven car manufacture companies. (…cost so much, CNN) The profits of pharmaceutical companies are outrageous and extreme. There are many reasons to why these companies are greedily taking advantage of customers. The number one reason is because people who are need of these prescriptions have no other choice but to purchase them.
Office, U. A. (2002). Prescription drugs: FDA oversight of direct-to-consumeradvertising has limitations (GAO-3-177). Washington, D.C.
Although the pharmaceutical industry says that prescription medicines are as safe as they can possibly be, prescribed drugs have a high increase of risking a patient’s health. According to the law, drug makers seek Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for specific uses of their products and conduct trials to test their drugs safety and effectiveness in patients with specific conditions. The FDA demands that drug companies conduct rigorous clinical trials to prove a drugs safety and effectiveness in treating a particular disease. However, once the FDA approves a drug for one use, doctors can prescribe it for whatever they want. The FDA is considering loosening the monitoring of off-label prescriptions, but if anything, regulations should be tightened. Despite the practices of some medical personnel, the risk of serious medical complications demands that the FDA regulate and restrict off-label use of prescription drugs.
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.]”
Prescription drug advertising is a normal part of living in the United States. Considering what people can learn through advertising in society is almost unreal. The US population have encountered drug advertisements dating back to the early 1900’s. From heroin to aspirin and everything in between were at once listed to be advertised. Fast forward to today, and pharmaceutical companies continue to use high amounts of prescription drugs advertisements. People right now are seeing the effects that these advertisements have in negative ways, but also at the same time creating benefits in society.
Nadelmann, Ethan. "DRUGS: THINK AGAIN." European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies. Sept.-Oct. 2007. Web. 02 Mar. 2011. .
Government factors into the equation of the argument. Critics of the drug industry say that there is not enough regulation, while supporters of the pharmaceutical companies argue that there is too much regulation and that that is one...