Search

Pharmaceutical marketing, which is primarily targeted at physicians, has been criticised because it may distort physician prescribing and thus potentially raise costs and/or worsen health. An alternative view, presented in this paper, is that successful marketing of pharmaceuticals can improve consumer welfare by increasing incentives for research and development (R&D) investment and by providing guidance to R&D to make it more consistent with consumer preferences. There are a number of arguments that support this view, despite impediments to pharmaceutical marketing such as the prohibited dissemination of off-label information in the US, difficulties in estimating potential pharmaceutical demand, and the long time lag between demand assessment and the introduction of new drugs. For example, physicians are often slow to modify their prescribing practices, even when new evidence-based practice guidelines are issued by prestigious organisations. Pharmaceutical promotion is likely to be particularly valuable because information plays a key role, is highly technical, and can change rapidly. Even consumer advertising can potentially improve health, for example, by improving patient compliance with drug therapy. In addition to disseminating information about the benefits of new therapies, an essential (and perhaps unique) role for pharmaceutical promotion is to encourage physicians and payers to pay closer attention to consumer needs (i.e. willingness to pay) for new medical technology. Moreover, successful marketing of pharmaceuticals increases the returns from R&D, thus increasing incentives to explore consumer demand and to contribute to basic research on the role of drug therapy. Consumer benefits from this process may be very large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) is legal in the US and New Zealand, but illegal in the rest of the world. Little or no research exists on the social welfare implications of DTCA.Aim: To quantify the total costs and benefits associated with both appropriate and inappropriate care due to DTCA, for the case of depression.Methods: A cost-benefit model was developed using parameter estimates from available survey, epidemiological and experimental data. The model estimates the total benefits and costs (year 2002 values) of new appropriate and inappropriate care stimulated by DTCA for depression. Uncertainty in model parameters is addressed with sensitivity analyses.Results: This study provides evidence that 94% of new antidepressant use due to DTCA is from non-depressed individuals. However, the average health benefit to each new depressed user is 63-fold greater than the cost per treatment, creating a positive overall social welfare effect; a net benefit of >72 million US dollars.Conclusion: This analysis suggests that DTCA may lead to antidepressant treatment in 15-fold as many non-depressed people as depressed people. However, the costs of treating non-depressed people may be vastly outweighed by the much larger benefit accruing to treated depressed individuals. The cost-benefit ratio can be improved through better targeting of advertisements and higher quality treatment of depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]