I know I’ve arrived in Bizarro World when Bill Frist and I agree on something: The introduction of a moratorium on drug ads to consumers.
Frist, a Republican from Tennessee and a heart-lung replacement surgeon, on July 1 asked drug makers for a voluntary, two-year moratorium on direct-to-consumer advertising, the type that consumers see on television and in magazines.
The problem is that consumers see the ads on television for products promising to “make them better” and then go to the doctors, requesting the drugs by name. I have no personal experience with this, as I think our society is already overly-medicated, so my assumptions are based on what I read, but the doctors will apparently prescribe what the patients ask for, rather than offer less expensive and perhaps better performing alternatives.
The drug makers obviously want to continue advertising directly to consumers. Even Eli Lilly’s spokesman says their advertising directs patients to the doctor’s office, but many people go while it’s not medically necessary, unduly influenced by advertising — advertising which accentuates benefits and downplays risks. On the other hand, drug companies blame the doctors for not saying “no” to patients who ask for unnecessary medication.
Updated July 16, 2010 and originally published August 2, 2005. If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to the RSS feed or receive daily emails. Follow @flexo on Twitter and visit our Facebook page for more updates.









Luke Landes founded Consumerism Commentary in 2003 and has been building online communities since 1990. Luke, also known as Flexo, has contributed to PC World Magazine, US News, Forbes, and other publications. 




{ 4 comments }
I agree, but the problem goes much deeper than that. For instance, I read in Fortune a while back that American drug companies sell drugs to other countries for less than they sell them here. That, to me, is just wrong. If other countries want to purchase our drugs, they should have to pay the going price, which would then lower the prices for everyone.
And yes, we are definitely over-medicated!
Conversely, perhaps Americans and developed countries should get to pay those low prices for vaccines and drugs that third-world countries pay. (That would never happen, of course.)
But I don’t think I agree with that thought. The world benefits (over the long term) when developing countries are helped. It’s the same theory as debt relief between nations.
I’m going to find that Colvin article and email it to you.
Here’s some text from the article, probably copyrighted somewhere:
My response: