Sean Fenske, Editor03.10.16
It’s almost impossible to watch a television program without seeing an advertisement for a pharmaceutical product. There are direct-to-consumer ads for drug brands proliferating on television, in magazines, online, and across billboards and buses. The problem, some would claim, is that this amount of advertising is directly contributing to an increase in the price of healthcare with rising drug prices, which are required, in part, to pay for such a tremendous amount of advertising.
Why does this matter to medical device manufacturers? In more recent years, medical device companies have begun to market their products directly to consumers, much in the same way as pharmaceutical firms, albeit on a significantly smaller scale. That doesn’t mean it’s not a growing trend that will likely increase. Device companies can take advantage of direct-to-consumer advertising for a number of technologies as a strategy to get patients to speak with their doctors about innovative solutions for specific healthcare conditions. Additionally, as medical devices are being used by patients in their homes and on the go more often, a direct-to-consumer advertising approach makes complete sense as more products will be appearing on store shelves, all vying for the consumer dollar.
So again, why does this matter? As mentioned, some see a direct-to-consumer advertising strategy as being responsible (in part) for increasing healthcare costs. With this in mind, in November of last year, the American Medical Association (AMA) called for a ban to be placed on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices. While a press release from the association was much more focused on prescription drugs than it was on medical devices, the intent was still there for both sectors. According to the release, the AMA was seeking to adopt a new policy “aimed at driving solutions to make prescription drugs more affordable.” There’s no reason to believe that if medical device advertising to consumers continues to increase, the AMA won’t similarly increase their attention on medical device companies.
Of course, the AMA’s stance is really more symbolic than anything else. They can attempt to use any influence they have, however, to get the FDA or perhaps Congress to revisit the stipulations that provide guidance to drug and device companies and their ability to advertise to the consumer directly. Short of that, it’s just the AMA sharing their opinion on the matter.
The question that comes to my mind when hearing of this is what is the AMA’s stance on hospitals advertising healthcare services or doctors promoting treatment solutions? What about a hospital highlighting a medical device or technology as the “attraction” to lure patients to use their facility? For example, I’ve heard hospitals advertise the ability to perform TAVR procedures using the latest innovations. I’ve also heard hospitals promote their ability to precisely target cancer with a robotic radiosurgery system.
Now, up until 1980, the AMA did have a ban in place on this type of advertising. That ban was overturned in the courts and, as a result, we have hospitals and healthcare facilities advertising directly to consumers. So perhaps the AMA, as an organization, is still against the practice, but since their ban was overturned, there isn’t much they can do without garnering support for healthcare advertising to be eliminated through other means, such as new legislation.
Perhaps worse still, the restrictions that are placed on drug manufacturers with regard to advertising by the FDA are not the same as for hospitals. Healthcare facilities don’t need to provide the laundry list of potential concerns with visiting their facility like a pharmaceutical manufacturer has to do with its drug. You don’t hear about the risk of suffering from a healthcare-associated infection from being in their facility; or wrong site surgery incidents. This is because the rules aren’t the same when it comes to advertising.
So what’s the answer? Sure, healthcare costs continue to rise at an unsustainable rate. At the same time, all of these entities—pharmaceutical manufacturer, medical device company, and hospital and healthcare facility—are businesses and all businesses typically have a goal to make money. When discussing people’s health, that shouldn’t be the primary goal but the fact of the matter is that is how our system has evolved to where we are today.
While I can appreciate the stance the AMA has taken with regard to the advertising of pharmaceuticals and medical devices to consumers in the interest of decreasing the cost of healthcare, I also know that this is virtually unachievable given the current industry landscape. It’s going to take a much greater action to have an impact. The association should call for a complete ban of advertising to consumers for all healthcare products and services, or it risks the appearance of selectively picking on certain members of the industry (i.e., pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers) while overlooking others (i.e., hospitals and healthcare facilities).
Why does this matter to medical device manufacturers? In more recent years, medical device companies have begun to market their products directly to consumers, much in the same way as pharmaceutical firms, albeit on a significantly smaller scale. That doesn’t mean it’s not a growing trend that will likely increase. Device companies can take advantage of direct-to-consumer advertising for a number of technologies as a strategy to get patients to speak with their doctors about innovative solutions for specific healthcare conditions. Additionally, as medical devices are being used by patients in their homes and on the go more often, a direct-to-consumer advertising approach makes complete sense as more products will be appearing on store shelves, all vying for the consumer dollar.
So again, why does this matter? As mentioned, some see a direct-to-consumer advertising strategy as being responsible (in part) for increasing healthcare costs. With this in mind, in November of last year, the American Medical Association (AMA) called for a ban to be placed on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices. While a press release from the association was much more focused on prescription drugs than it was on medical devices, the intent was still there for both sectors. According to the release, the AMA was seeking to adopt a new policy “aimed at driving solutions to make prescription drugs more affordable.” There’s no reason to believe that if medical device advertising to consumers continues to increase, the AMA won’t similarly increase their attention on medical device companies.
Of course, the AMA’s stance is really more symbolic than anything else. They can attempt to use any influence they have, however, to get the FDA or perhaps Congress to revisit the stipulations that provide guidance to drug and device companies and their ability to advertise to the consumer directly. Short of that, it’s just the AMA sharing their opinion on the matter.
The question that comes to my mind when hearing of this is what is the AMA’s stance on hospitals advertising healthcare services or doctors promoting treatment solutions? What about a hospital highlighting a medical device or technology as the “attraction” to lure patients to use their facility? For example, I’ve heard hospitals advertise the ability to perform TAVR procedures using the latest innovations. I’ve also heard hospitals promote their ability to precisely target cancer with a robotic radiosurgery system.
Now, up until 1980, the AMA did have a ban in place on this type of advertising. That ban was overturned in the courts and, as a result, we have hospitals and healthcare facilities advertising directly to consumers. So perhaps the AMA, as an organization, is still against the practice, but since their ban was overturned, there isn’t much they can do without garnering support for healthcare advertising to be eliminated through other means, such as new legislation.
Perhaps worse still, the restrictions that are placed on drug manufacturers with regard to advertising by the FDA are not the same as for hospitals. Healthcare facilities don’t need to provide the laundry list of potential concerns with visiting their facility like a pharmaceutical manufacturer has to do with its drug. You don’t hear about the risk of suffering from a healthcare-associated infection from being in their facility; or wrong site surgery incidents. This is because the rules aren’t the same when it comes to advertising.
So what’s the answer? Sure, healthcare costs continue to rise at an unsustainable rate. At the same time, all of these entities—pharmaceutical manufacturer, medical device company, and hospital and healthcare facility—are businesses and all businesses typically have a goal to make money. When discussing people’s health, that shouldn’t be the primary goal but the fact of the matter is that is how our system has evolved to where we are today.
While I can appreciate the stance the AMA has taken with regard to the advertising of pharmaceuticals and medical devices to consumers in the interest of decreasing the cost of healthcare, I also know that this is virtually unachievable given the current industry landscape. It’s going to take a much greater action to have an impact. The association should call for a complete ban of advertising to consumers for all healthcare products and services, or it risks the appearance of selectively picking on certain members of the industry (i.e., pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers) while overlooking others (i.e., hospitals and healthcare facilities).