Don't Be Duped by Drug Ads

by Molly M. Ginty

One woman laughs easily at a party, freed from a social anxiety disorder by her new medication.

A second woman dances in a flowing purple gown, promoting a prescription stomach drug.

A third woman dozes as a golden butterfly floats above, suggesting the rest and relaxation that can come with the help of a popular sleep aid.

All these are the subjects of direct–to consumer ads, many of which are aimed at women.

"Ads such as these promote women’s products or take into account the fact that many women serve as primary caregivers and make health care decisions for their families," said Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action. "With their reassuring settings and soft background music, these ads often have a female focus."

Flooding magazines, newspapers, radio, and television, direct–to–consumer drug ads are a $4.8 billion–a–year business that has seen a 15–fold spending increase in the past decade. But according to critics, these commercials may pose a hazard to women — the very audience at whom they are targeted.

Worry number one? Lax oversight. "Direct–to–consumer drug ads are not under careful review by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency," said Deborah Socolar, co-director of the Health Reform Program at the Boston University School of Public Health. "Often, these ads promote products about which relatively little is known."

Worry number two? Health problems created when these drugs are rushed to market before their safety and efficacy are established. Such was the case with Vioxx, a painkiller introduced in 1999 through commercials narrated by a female voice. In 2004, Vioxx saw the largest prescription drug recall in history after researchers discovered it doubled the risk of heart attack, the number one killer of U.S. women.

Worry number three? Misrepresentation of the facts. "Consider Celebrex," said Cindy Pearson, president of the National Women’s Health Network. "Ads for this arthritis drug showed women practicing tai chi, movement that would be impossible for most arthritis patients." Critics say that such deception is common, and note that a recent UCLA study found that many direct-to-consumer ads exaggerate their products’ effects.

Other concerns? Though drug companies say that direct–to–consumer ads educate the public about health, women’s activists say that they may actually undermine our health. "These ads can harm the doctor–patient relationship, pressure physicians to prescribe certain drugs, and lead to the inappropriate use of medications," said Judy Norsigian, executive director of Our Bodies, Ourselves, a health education organization.

Worries such as these have prompted a consortium of 39 women’s and health organizations to pressure Congress to either ban drugs ads or subject them to a 3 percent tax and the inclusion of consumer warnings that indicate whether they have been tested on fewer than 3,000 people. The American Medical Association is lobbying drug companies to delay ads for new products until their safety and efficacy are established. And the Institute of Medicine is recommending that a special symbol such as a black triangle be used to label new drugs or drug combinations for the first two years, during which there should be restrictions on advertising.

How did drug ads become so contentious that mainstream health groups object to them? It all started with a 1997 policy change at the FDA. Previously, the agency required that ads for prescription drugs include nearly all warning label information — a mandate that made these ads prohibitively long to run on radio or television. But 10 years ago, new regulations allowed advertisers to name the product and disease and, instead of providing complete information on side effects, simply give major risks and additional sources of information such as Web sites.

Within months, drug commercials — the majority of them aimed at women — inundated media outlets. The ads generated ever–higher revenues, and today, prescription–drug spending is the fastest–growing sector of U.S. health care. Each year, more than 8.5 million Americans receive prescriptions for drugs they learn about through commercials. In a single decade, the total number of drug prescriptions has jumped more than 70 percent; average prescription prices have spiked from $29 to $64; and annual prescriptions per capita have nearly doubled, from seven to 12.

Unless authorities put stricter limits on direct–to–consumer commercials (which are banned in every country except the United States and New Zealand), how should women deal with drug ads? Health advocates recommend sticking with tried–and–true prescription medications until new ones have been on the market for three years. Educate yourself — and talk to your doctor — about each drug’s side effects and contraindications. And above all, don’t believe the hype.

"Drug ads feature sexy, smiling women walking by the lake, rolling around with their children, or out on hot dates," said Kathleen Slattery–Moschkau, writer and director of the 2006 documentary Money Talks: Profits before Patient Safety. "They convince us that we, too, can be this happy, this sexy, and this beautiful if only we take this pill. But true health means accepting yourself as you are. It means having accurate information and using it to make informed choices."

For more information go to the Web site, Our Bodies, Ourselves (www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book). Look at chapter 31, "The Politics of Women’s Health," then at the section titled "Direct to Consumer Advertising."

Article published in Lutheran Woman Today, September 2007