The Dangers Of Direct To Consumer Advertising
The Dangers of Direct to Consumer Ads
An American citizen would find it difficult to settle in and watch television programming that does not include multiple advertisements for this, that, or the other, prescription drug. Some might say why not, prescription medication is a product like anything else. The answer lies, quite simply, in the overwhelming negative effects of Big Pharmas’ direct to consumer advertising. Given these overwhelming negative effects, the federal government should revisit this policy thereby improving the lives and health of Americans. The negative effects of DTCAs are straining relationships between physicians and patients, misinforming, corrupting, …show more content…
increasing costs, and potentially harming, all of which Big Pharmas chose to risk for the sake of making a profit. With all of the negative side effects, it seems implausible that people would not be more opposed to DTCAs. However this is due to the fact that Big Pharmas use DTCAs to misinform people. One example that immediately comes to mind would be Pfizer’s Lipitor commercial featuring Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the artificial heart. This ad was later deemed misleading and subsequently pulled after Congress probed it, because “Jarvik, who appears to be acting as a doctor giving medical advice, is not licensed to practice medicine.”2 This was deemed misleading because most people knew him to be related in some way to the medical field, even if they didn’t know how exactly he contributed to it. And having him in the commercial made consumers feel the drug was safe, as they assumed that a ‘doctor’ would not appear on television to advertise a drug that he did not believe was safe. But Big Pharmas have been known to withhold information that they are not obliged to share (this fact alone is something drug companies probably would not like people to know). And they know just how misleading DTCAs can be, which is why they target consumers, providing them with “an incomplete and biased education” thereby creating the “allusion of an ‘informed patient’”.3 And the 2004 reports of IMS Health (IMS) and CAM Group (CAM), two international market research companies that provide the pharmaceutical industry with sales/marketing data and consulting services, proved this. They estimated that “the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.”4 Not only do drug companies lie about how much they spend on DTCAs, but they also overemphasize the benefits of their drugs. Meledy Peterson, author of Our Daily Meds, states, “It is a common sales tactic in the industry to have sales reps push doctors to prescribe a drug for many uses and patient conditions… even though it is illegal to promote a drug for anything other than the condition the FDA has approved it for.”5 This is due to the fact that in December 2012, this was made legal: “the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case (PDF) that could dramatically expand the free-speech rights of pharmaceutical companies, allowing them to share unapproved information about the drugs they make.6 Another result of Big Pharma’s expanded free speech rights is its ability to manufacture diseases. It is not doctors, but drug companies that lead the nation in the discovery of new maladies that only seem to afflict our country, with things such as “restless leg syndrome,” “low testosterone disorder,” and “erectile dysfunction.”7 This can be proven by the fact that “Somewhere between 24 and 30 million people have gone to their doctor to talk about a health problem they had never discussed before after seeing a prescription drug ad.”8 This in turn leads to a slew of problems that strains the relationship between physicians and their patients. People in America tend to look for quick fixes to all of their medical problems, something that can be remedied with the pop of a pill. This leads them to look in the direction of their doctor. Their doctor is then faced with a decision: to go with their instinct or the patient’s. It seems like an obvious decision, as the doctor is the one with the medical training. However, the decision becomes more complicated when paired with the fact that the patient chooses the physician, not the other way around. Doctors end up wasting precious appointment time explaining to someone why X drug is not right for them: “77 percent of surgeons believe that patients came to office visits with inaccurate information and were confused about procedures and implants.”9 This dashing of their dreams causes patients to leave their doctor unsatisfied, which could in turn lead them to ‘doctor-shop’ until they find someone who is willing to prescribe them the medication they want. And so the question becomes whether a doctor should do what’s right even if it means losing a patient, or do what they patient wants even if it is not in their best interest to do so? And sadly, it seems to be the case that “General practitioners will just do what the patient asks” for fear of losing them.10 On the other hand, doctors might inappropriately prescribe medication for a wholly different reason. The previously mentioned drug Pfizer also resulted in the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigating the company. This led them to find that “The company has conducted months of segmentation studies, held dozens of meetings to define the “communication target,” “spent millions of dollars to develop the drug’s brand and its market,” and “to cultivate medical professionals, drugs companies may retain a doctor as a spokesperson, position friendly medical “thought-leaders” in the media, or organize free events at posh resorts and expensive hotels to “educate” doctors about a new disease state;”11 it is possible that Big Pharmas can corrupt doctors into supplying people their drugs given that “the pharmaceutical industry’s holy grail of marketing – the relationship between their sales representatives and medical doctors”12 which in order “to maintain this relationship, often called “detailing,” pharmaceutical companies’ spend a whopping $8,290 per doctor.”13 Peterson believes in the corruption of the drug industry, remarking that “Fraud is rampant in this industry because there is so much money involved. Promotional campaigns are funded by more than a billion dollars.”14 What is even more shocking is where these billions of dollars are going: they have turned health care from “curing and treating to drugging and numbing” by spending considerably more money on advertising, rather than proper medical research on their drugs.15 Big Pharmas also turn a profit by using DTCAs to funnel people the “new and more expensive medications”, regardless of whether they are “appropriate” or “cost effective.”16 And so, consumers opt for the most expensive drugs, believing that the higher the price, the better the medication. A study mentioned in the article “Changing Prescribing Patterns and Increasing Prescription Expenditures in Medicaid found that “Prescription drug coverage for 1 person a year cost $503 in 1998 and $759 in 2000, for an annual increase of 22.8%” and “The average number of prescriptions filled per person a year increased from 13.0 in 1998 to 15.5 in 2000.”17 However, the truth of the matter is that the most expensive drug does not always mean the most effective. In fact, some of these drugs can even be considered more dangerous than effective. Big Pharmas tend to test new drugs in ‘controlled trials’ before they deem it safe for the public. But as each individual is different, the results of drugs will be different as well, and in some cases, disastrous.
The article “Highlights of the 2011 Drug Abuse Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits” reports that in 2011, there were 5.1 million drug-related emergency department (ED) visits.18 And while not all, many of these visits can be chalked up to faulty drugs displaying adverse side effects not foreseen by the drug companies. This leads to drug recalls, which seems to be in no short supply; from 2009 to the present, there have been at least 75 drugs that have been discontinued.19 And this is just counting the drugs that Big Pharmas were forced to take off of the market by the FDA. Some drugs, like Suboxone, are still available to be prescribed to the public, even though trials are still being conducted for them.20 Peterson contests this, remarking that “Today, the companies start promoting a drug years before it even goes to the FDA for approval.”21 Due to the amount of drugs, safe or otherwise, made available to the public by Big Pharmas, it can be inferred that they play a significant role in the overutilization of drugs in this country. And the statistics for drug use are staggering: of the 5.1 million drug-related emergency department visits, about one half (49 percent) were attributed to drug misuse or abuse22, “An estimated 1.9 million people in the United States meet abuse or dependence criteria for prescription pain relievers,” “Sixty-five percent of the country takes a prescription drug these days,”23 “Prescription drugs taken as directed kill 100,000 Americans a year [from known side effects],”24 and “more people die from prescription painkiller overdoses than from heroin and cocaine combined.”25 These numbers can be attributed to the fact that DTCAs are no longer rigorously regulated. Doctors no longer do thorough research on the drugs advertised before they prescribe them; the article “New online resources for opioid prescribers now available on NIDA’s website” talks about “new training materials for health providers who prescribe or counsel patients about opioids.” They reveal the level of training now required in order to prescribe dangerous pharmaceuticals – a couple of online classes.26 And instead of cracking down on them, The FDA is going even easier on Big Pharmas: “the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eased up on a rule obliging companies to offer a detailed list of side-effects in there infomercials” in 1997.27 Not only this, but “in recent years, the number of regulatory actions taken by the FDA against DTCA violations has fallen off dramatically, which could reflect better industry compliance but could also be a result of a decline in FDA oversight.”28 However, nowadays, a myriad of people are beginning to see the major problems with DTCAs. The American Medical Association wishes to limit drug advertising; the FDA has raised its surveillance of drug advertising; the Untied States House of Representatives has doubled the F.D.A.’s budget for monitoring the advertising of pharmaceuticals to consumers; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America has started drafting guidelines for the industry; even the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced and published self-imposed guidelines.”29 And while this is a start, in order to completely stop drug companies from “targeting doctors”, “turning patients into consumers”, and “turning medical necessities into consumer choices,”30 the federal government needs to revisit their policy on Big Pharmas’ direct to consumer advertising.
Works Cited
Abrams, Michael. “Big Pharma’s Direct to Consumer Advertising Corrupts America’s Health Culture.” IVN. 3 May 2012. http://ivn.us/2012/05/03/big-pharmas-direct- to-consumer-advertising-corrupts-americas-health-culture/. 28 Sep. 2013.
“Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds.” ScienceDaily.7 Jan. 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm. 2 Oct, 2013.
Direct-to-consumer advertising under fire.” World Health Organization. 8 August 2009. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-040809/en/. 2 Oct 2013.
“Drugs To Be Discontinued.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 26 Sep 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugShortages/ucm050794.htm. 2 Oct 2013.
Ebeling, Mary. “Beyond Advertising: The Pharmaceutical Industry 's Hidden Marketing Tactics.” PR Watch. 21 Feb 2008. http://www.prwatch.org/node/7026. 2 Oct 2013.
Fink, Kenneth S.; Byrns, Patricia J. “Changing Prescribing Patterns and Increasing Prescription Expenditures in Medicaid.” Annals of Family Medicine. 2 Dec 2003. http://www.annfammed.org/content/2/5/488.abstract. 2 Oct 2013.
Frum, David. “Drug industry’s free speech helps doctors.” CNN Opinion. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/opinion/frum-off-label-use-of- drugs/. 6 Dec. 2012.
“Highlights of the 2011 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug- Related Emergency Department Visits.” SAMHSA. 18 Feb 2013. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN127/sr127-DAWN-highlights.htm. 2 Oct 2013.
Jagsi, Reshma. “Conflicts of Interest and the Physician-Patient Relationship in the Era of Direct-to-Patient Advertising.” Journal of Clinical Oncology. 15 Aug 2006. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 15 Aug 2006.http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/25/7/902.full. 2 Oct 2013.)
Kusuma, Sharat K.; Nunley, Ryan M.; Mehta, Samir; Genuario, James W.; Kennedy, Jeanie. “DTCA: Improving patient education or simply increasing pharmaceutical profits?” AAOS
“Lipitor ad featuring Dr. Jarvik pulled by Pfizer.” Chicago Tribune. 26 February 2008. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-02- 26/business/0802250383_1_lipitor-robert-jarvik-pfizer.
“New online resources for opioid prescribers now available on NIDA’s website.” National Institute on Drug Abuse. 31 Oct 2012. http://www.drugabuse.gov/news- events/news-releases/2012/10/new-online-resources-opioid-prescribers-now- available-nidas-website. 2 Oct 2013.
“Painkiller Abuse Treated by Sustained Buprenorphine/Naloxone.” National Institute on Drug Abuse. 8 Nov 2011. http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news- releases/2011/11/painkiller-abuse-treated-by-sustained-buprenorphinenaloxone. 2 Oct 2013.
Perdomo, Daniela. “100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich.” AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_p rescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich. 2 Oct 2013.
Saul, Stephanie. “A.M.A. To Study Effect of Marketing Drugs to Consumers.” The New York Times. 22 June 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/business/media/22adco.html?_r=0. 2 Oct 2013.
Ventola, C. Lee. “Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising.” PMC. Oct 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148. 2 Oct
2013.
Works Consulted
Horowitz, Eric. “How Pharmaceutical Ads Distort Healthcare Markets.” Psychology Today. 15 Apr 2013. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-inertia- trap/201304/how-pharmaceutical-ads-distort-healthcare-markets. 2 Oct 2013.
Litts, David A.; Carr, Colleen. “Substance Abuse Prevention is Suicide Prevention.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. 10 Sep 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/10/substance-abuse-prevention-suicide- prevention. 2 Oct 2013.
Messemore, W.E. “Big Pharma’s Direct-to-Consumer Advertising Is A Constitutional Right.” IVN. 7 Nov. 2011. http://ivn.us/2012/05/04/big-pharmas-direct-to- consumer-advertising-is-a-constitutional-right/. 28 Sep. 2013.
“Policy Impact: Prescription Painkiller Overdoses.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2 July, 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief. 2 Oct, 2013.
“Prescription Painkiller Overdoses in the US.” CDC Vital Signs. Nov 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/PainkillerOverdoses/index.html. 2 Oct 2013.
“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?” ProCon.org. 20 Sep 2013. http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org. 2 Oct 2013.
An American citizen would find it difficult to settle in and watch television programming that does not include multiple advertisements for this, that, or the other, prescription drug. Some might say why not, prescription medication is a product like anything else. The answer lies, quite simply, in the overwhelming negative effects of Big Pharmas’ direct to consumer advertising. Given these overwhelming negative effects, the federal government should revisit this policy thereby improving the lives and health of Americans. The negative effects of DTCAs are straining relationships between physicians and patients, misinforming, corrupting, …show more content…
increasing costs, and potentially harming, all of which Big Pharmas chose to risk for the sake of making a profit. With all of the negative side effects, it seems implausible that people would not be more opposed to DTCAs. However this is due to the fact that Big Pharmas use DTCAs to misinform people. One example that immediately comes to mind would be Pfizer’s Lipitor commercial featuring Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the artificial heart. This ad was later deemed misleading and subsequently pulled after Congress probed it, because “Jarvik, who appears to be acting as a doctor giving medical advice, is not licensed to practice medicine.”2 This was deemed misleading because most people knew him to be related in some way to the medical field, even if they didn’t know how exactly he contributed to it. And having him in the commercial made consumers feel the drug was safe, as they assumed that a ‘doctor’ would not appear on television to advertise a drug that he did not believe was safe. But Big Pharmas have been known to withhold information that they are not obliged to share (this fact alone is something drug companies probably would not like people to know). And they know just how misleading DTCAs can be, which is why they target consumers, providing them with “an incomplete and biased education” thereby creating the “allusion of an ‘informed patient’”.3 And the 2004 reports of IMS Health (IMS) and CAM Group (CAM), two international market research companies that provide the pharmaceutical industry with sales/marketing data and consulting services, proved this. They estimated that “the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.”4 Not only do drug companies lie about how much they spend on DTCAs, but they also overemphasize the benefits of their drugs. Meledy Peterson, author of Our Daily Meds, states, “It is a common sales tactic in the industry to have sales reps push doctors to prescribe a drug for many uses and patient conditions… even though it is illegal to promote a drug for anything other than the condition the FDA has approved it for.”5 This is due to the fact that in December 2012, this was made legal: “the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case (PDF) that could dramatically expand the free-speech rights of pharmaceutical companies, allowing them to share unapproved information about the drugs they make.6 Another result of Big Pharma’s expanded free speech rights is its ability to manufacture diseases. It is not doctors, but drug companies that lead the nation in the discovery of new maladies that only seem to afflict our country, with things such as “restless leg syndrome,” “low testosterone disorder,” and “erectile dysfunction.”7 This can be proven by the fact that “Somewhere between 24 and 30 million people have gone to their doctor to talk about a health problem they had never discussed before after seeing a prescription drug ad.”8 This in turn leads to a slew of problems that strains the relationship between physicians and their patients. People in America tend to look for quick fixes to all of their medical problems, something that can be remedied with the pop of a pill. This leads them to look in the direction of their doctor. Their doctor is then faced with a decision: to go with their instinct or the patient’s. It seems like an obvious decision, as the doctor is the one with the medical training. However, the decision becomes more complicated when paired with the fact that the patient chooses the physician, not the other way around. Doctors end up wasting precious appointment time explaining to someone why X drug is not right for them: “77 percent of surgeons believe that patients came to office visits with inaccurate information and were confused about procedures and implants.”9 This dashing of their dreams causes patients to leave their doctor unsatisfied, which could in turn lead them to ‘doctor-shop’ until they find someone who is willing to prescribe them the medication they want. And so the question becomes whether a doctor should do what’s right even if it means losing a patient, or do what they patient wants even if it is not in their best interest to do so? And sadly, it seems to be the case that “General practitioners will just do what the patient asks” for fear of losing them.10 On the other hand, doctors might inappropriately prescribe medication for a wholly different reason. The previously mentioned drug Pfizer also resulted in the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigating the company. This led them to find that “The company has conducted months of segmentation studies, held dozens of meetings to define the “communication target,” “spent millions of dollars to develop the drug’s brand and its market,” and “to cultivate medical professionals, drugs companies may retain a doctor as a spokesperson, position friendly medical “thought-leaders” in the media, or organize free events at posh resorts and expensive hotels to “educate” doctors about a new disease state;”11 it is possible that Big Pharmas can corrupt doctors into supplying people their drugs given that “the pharmaceutical industry’s holy grail of marketing – the relationship between their sales representatives and medical doctors”12 which in order “to maintain this relationship, often called “detailing,” pharmaceutical companies’ spend a whopping $8,290 per doctor.”13 Peterson believes in the corruption of the drug industry, remarking that “Fraud is rampant in this industry because there is so much money involved. Promotional campaigns are funded by more than a billion dollars.”14 What is even more shocking is where these billions of dollars are going: they have turned health care from “curing and treating to drugging and numbing” by spending considerably more money on advertising, rather than proper medical research on their drugs.15 Big Pharmas also turn a profit by using DTCAs to funnel people the “new and more expensive medications”, regardless of whether they are “appropriate” or “cost effective.”16 And so, consumers opt for the most expensive drugs, believing that the higher the price, the better the medication. A study mentioned in the article “Changing Prescribing Patterns and Increasing Prescription Expenditures in Medicaid found that “Prescription drug coverage for 1 person a year cost $503 in 1998 and $759 in 2000, for an annual increase of 22.8%” and “The average number of prescriptions filled per person a year increased from 13.0 in 1998 to 15.5 in 2000.”17 However, the truth of the matter is that the most expensive drug does not always mean the most effective. In fact, some of these drugs can even be considered more dangerous than effective. Big Pharmas tend to test new drugs in ‘controlled trials’ before they deem it safe for the public. But as each individual is different, the results of drugs will be different as well, and in some cases, disastrous.
The article “Highlights of the 2011 Drug Abuse Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits” reports that in 2011, there were 5.1 million drug-related emergency department (ED) visits.18 And while not all, many of these visits can be chalked up to faulty drugs displaying adverse side effects not foreseen by the drug companies. This leads to drug recalls, which seems to be in no short supply; from 2009 to the present, there have been at least 75 drugs that have been discontinued.19 And this is just counting the drugs that Big Pharmas were forced to take off of the market by the FDA. Some drugs, like Suboxone, are still available to be prescribed to the public, even though trials are still being conducted for them.20 Peterson contests this, remarking that “Today, the companies start promoting a drug years before it even goes to the FDA for approval.”21 Due to the amount of drugs, safe or otherwise, made available to the public by Big Pharmas, it can be inferred that they play a significant role in the overutilization of drugs in this country. And the statistics for drug use are staggering: of the 5.1 million drug-related emergency department visits, about one half (49 percent) were attributed to drug misuse or abuse22, “An estimated 1.9 million people in the United States meet abuse or dependence criteria for prescription pain relievers,” “Sixty-five percent of the country takes a prescription drug these days,”23 “Prescription drugs taken as directed kill 100,000 Americans a year [from known side effects],”24 and “more people die from prescription painkiller overdoses than from heroin and cocaine combined.”25 These numbers can be attributed to the fact that DTCAs are no longer rigorously regulated. Doctors no longer do thorough research on the drugs advertised before they prescribe them; the article “New online resources for opioid prescribers now available on NIDA’s website” talks about “new training materials for health providers who prescribe or counsel patients about opioids.” They reveal the level of training now required in order to prescribe dangerous pharmaceuticals – a couple of online classes.26 And instead of cracking down on them, The FDA is going even easier on Big Pharmas: “the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eased up on a rule obliging companies to offer a detailed list of side-effects in there infomercials” in 1997.27 Not only this, but “in recent years, the number of regulatory actions taken by the FDA against DTCA violations has fallen off dramatically, which could reflect better industry compliance but could also be a result of a decline in FDA oversight.”28 However, nowadays, a myriad of people are beginning to see the major problems with DTCAs. The American Medical Association wishes to limit drug advertising; the FDA has raised its surveillance of drug advertising; the Untied States House of Representatives has doubled the F.D.A.’s budget for monitoring the advertising of pharmaceuticals to consumers; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America has started drafting guidelines for the industry; even the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced and published self-imposed guidelines.”29 And while this is a start, in order to completely stop drug companies from “targeting doctors”, “turning patients into consumers”, and “turning medical necessities into consumer choices,”30 the federal government needs to revisit their policy on Big Pharmas’ direct to consumer advertising.
Works Cited
Abrams, Michael. “Big Pharma’s Direct to Consumer Advertising Corrupts America’s Health Culture.” IVN. 3 May 2012. http://ivn.us/2012/05/03/big-pharmas-direct- to-consumer-advertising-corrupts-americas-health-culture/. 28 Sep. 2013.
“Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds.” ScienceDaily.7 Jan. 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm. 2 Oct, 2013.
Direct-to-consumer advertising under fire.” World Health Organization. 8 August 2009. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-040809/en/. 2 Oct 2013.
“Drugs To Be Discontinued.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 26 Sep 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugShortages/ucm050794.htm. 2 Oct 2013.
Ebeling, Mary. “Beyond Advertising: The Pharmaceutical Industry 's Hidden Marketing Tactics.” PR Watch. 21 Feb 2008. http://www.prwatch.org/node/7026. 2 Oct 2013.
Fink, Kenneth S.; Byrns, Patricia J. “Changing Prescribing Patterns and Increasing Prescription Expenditures in Medicaid.” Annals of Family Medicine. 2 Dec 2003. http://www.annfammed.org/content/2/5/488.abstract. 2 Oct 2013.
Frum, David. “Drug industry’s free speech helps doctors.” CNN Opinion. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/opinion/frum-off-label-use-of- drugs/. 6 Dec. 2012.
“Highlights of the 2011 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug- Related Emergency Department Visits.” SAMHSA. 18 Feb 2013. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN127/sr127-DAWN-highlights.htm. 2 Oct 2013.
Jagsi, Reshma. “Conflicts of Interest and the Physician-Patient Relationship in the Era of Direct-to-Patient Advertising.” Journal of Clinical Oncology. 15 Aug 2006. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 15 Aug 2006.http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/25/7/902.full. 2 Oct 2013.)
Kusuma, Sharat K.; Nunley, Ryan M.; Mehta, Samir; Genuario, James W.; Kennedy, Jeanie. “DTCA: Improving patient education or simply increasing pharmaceutical profits?” AAOS
“Lipitor ad featuring Dr. Jarvik pulled by Pfizer.” Chicago Tribune. 26 February 2008. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-02- 26/business/0802250383_1_lipitor-robert-jarvik-pfizer.
“New online resources for opioid prescribers now available on NIDA’s website.” National Institute on Drug Abuse. 31 Oct 2012. http://www.drugabuse.gov/news- events/news-releases/2012/10/new-online-resources-opioid-prescribers-now- available-nidas-website. 2 Oct 2013.
“Painkiller Abuse Treated by Sustained Buprenorphine/Naloxone.” National Institute on Drug Abuse. 8 Nov 2011. http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news- releases/2011/11/painkiller-abuse-treated-by-sustained-buprenorphinenaloxone. 2 Oct 2013.
Perdomo, Daniela. “100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich.” AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_p rescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich. 2 Oct 2013.
Saul, Stephanie. “A.M.A. To Study Effect of Marketing Drugs to Consumers.” The New York Times. 22 June 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/business/media/22adco.html?_r=0. 2 Oct 2013.
Ventola, C. Lee. “Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising.” PMC. Oct 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148. 2 Oct
2013.
Works Consulted
Horowitz, Eric. “How Pharmaceutical Ads Distort Healthcare Markets.” Psychology Today. 15 Apr 2013. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-inertia- trap/201304/how-pharmaceutical-ads-distort-healthcare-markets. 2 Oct 2013.
Litts, David A.; Carr, Colleen. “Substance Abuse Prevention is Suicide Prevention.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. 10 Sep 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/10/substance-abuse-prevention-suicide- prevention. 2 Oct 2013.
Messemore, W.E. “Big Pharma’s Direct-to-Consumer Advertising Is A Constitutional Right.” IVN. 7 Nov. 2011. http://ivn.us/2012/05/04/big-pharmas-direct-to- consumer-advertising-is-a-constitutional-right/. 28 Sep. 2013.
“Policy Impact: Prescription Painkiller Overdoses.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2 July, 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief. 2 Oct, 2013.
“Prescription Painkiller Overdoses in the US.” CDC Vital Signs. Nov 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/PainkillerOverdoses/index.html. 2 Oct 2013.
“Should Prescription Drugs Be Advertised Directly to Consumers?” ProCon.org. 20 Sep 2013. http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org. 2 Oct 2013.