Direct buyer Advertising Raises the Cost of designate Drugs

Kaiser Medical Insurance - Direct buyer Advertising Raises the Cost of designate Drugs

Good morning. Now, I found out about Kaiser Medical Insurance - Direct buyer Advertising Raises the Cost of designate Drugs. Which may be very helpful in my opinion and also you. Direct buyer Advertising Raises the Cost of designate Drugs

When one looks at television, a newspaper or a magazine it is impossible not to be inundated with ads for various prescription drug medications. This was not always the case. In fact, not until 1997, when the Fda issued its guidelines for direct to consumer advertising, did this heavy pharmaceutical advertising expenditure begin.

What I said. It shouldn't be the conclusion that the actual about Kaiser Medical Insurance. You check out this article for info on anyone want to know is Kaiser Medical Insurance.

Kaiser Medical Insurance

It might interest some to know that only 2 countries in the world allow our brand of direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: the United State and New Zealand.

The amounts of money complicated are staggering. A study done by the Kaiser family Foundation in 2006 found that for every dollar a drug enterprise spent on advertising, it earned in additional sales. Doesn't sound like much, does it?

But the real numbers put the impact in prospective. In 1999, just two years after the Fda permitted direct to consumer advertising in its current form, Pfizer spent 55 million advertising it's cholesterol lowering drug, Lipitor. Sales of Lipitor jumped 56% that year to practically .6 billion.

As advertising spending went up, the amount of control exercised by the Fda fell. Agreeing to the New England Journal of Medicine, the Fda sent 142 violations letters to pharmaceutical fellowships in 1997. By 2006 the Fda sent only 21 violation letters.

As revenues from advertising grew, pharmaceutical fellowships found new ways to entice consumers to buy their brand. Celebrity advertising was born. Pfizer ran the now infamous commercials featuring Dr. Robert Jarvik promoting Lipitor "as a doctor and a father." As it turned out, Dr. Jarvik was not a licensed curative doctor despite his being the inventor of the artificial heart. Dr. Jarvik did have a curative degree from the University of Utah but after earning a curative degree, physicians must unblemished a series of tests to earn certification to custom medicine.

Reps. John D. Dingell (D-Mi), Chairman of the Committee on energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, launched an investigation into the misleading effect of the ads on consumers which had been popular ,favorite by the Fda.

In February 2008 Pfizer agreed to withdraw the Lipitor advertising and promotions featuring Dr. Robert Jarvik. Rep. Dingell stated that "Pfizer's decision was a wise one, and I am pleased our investigation prompted the extraction of Lipitor ads featuring Dr. Jarvik. We trust that Pfizer is sincere in its commitment to 'greater clarity' in its advertising. My colleagues and I look send to meeting with Pfizer's supervision team to discuss their plans related to direct-to-consumer advertising."

The Fda maintains that it continues to oversee direct to consumer advertising by drug fellowships to insure that ads are careful balanced and accurate.

The Pharmaceutical explore and Manufacturers of America (PhRma) represents the country's important pharmaceutical explore and biotechnology companies. This trade and lobbying group takes the valid position that the purpose of direct to consumer marketing is to raise sick person awareness of diseases and treatments that might be available to treat them. Their studies show that direct to consumer advertising brings patients into their doctors' offices and starts important doctor-patient conversations about condition that might otherwise take place.

The drug business is mounting major lobbying campaigns to have direct to consumer marketing allowed in Europe and Canada. The condition action International (Hai-Europe), in December 2001 set forth their mental for chronic to ban direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs. Given the current deliberate upon in the United States over condition care reform some of their rationale is quite relevant.

The Hai-Europe gave 4 reasons for chronic the ban on direct to consumer advertising.

1.Direct to consumer advertising drives up prescription drugs costs, threatening the sustainability of national condition care services and universal passage to condition care as a basic human right.

2. Direct to consumer advertising fails to inform. It does not provide the impartial, objective facts consumers and patients need for informed condition care decisions.

3. Direct to consumer advertising compromises public safety. It can lead to rapid allinclusive exposure to dangerous drugs before risks are fully recognized. Additionally, most new drugs are costlier than existing treatments, but few provide any therapeutic advantage.

4. Direct to consumer advertising promotes the medicalisation of normal life. The most heavily advertised drugs are for long-term use by large target audiences, often for mild conditions and 'lifestyle' problems that may not need drug therapy.

The deliberate upon will continue but do not look for a change in the advertising practices of U.S. Drug fellowships anytime soon.

I hope you have new knowledge about Kaiser Medical Insurance. Where you'll be able to offer use in your day-to-day life. And most of all, your reaction is passed about Kaiser Medical Insurance.