Edwards: 2-year ban on new drug ads

[babylonsister]

Edwards: 2-year ban on new drug ads

By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 33 minutes ago

LACONIA, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that prescription drug companies should wait two years to begin advertising their new products to consumers.

Outlining a plan to regulate what he views as misleading drug ads, Edwards noted that annual spending on such ads nearly has quadrupled to $4 billion in the decade since the government relaxed rules on advertising directly to consumers.

"You've seen these ads. You know who's paying for them, right? You are," said Edwards, who for years has derided ads that promise after one pill, "You'll be skipping through the fields holding hands with your spouse."

Top companies spend twice as much on marketing and administration as they do on research and development, he said at a town-hall meeting at Laconia High School.

"Basically, they do what they want, and they're driving up demand for the most expensive and most profitable drugs," he said. "The next president needs to deal with this issue."

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_po/edwards

[Triana]

1. That's my man! (K & R!)

[MethuenProgressive]

21. Is Edwards accusing Clinton of taking bribes???? (from OP)

Edwards has tried to portray Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who sits atop the Democratic presidential field, as beholden to Washington lobbyists because she accepts their money; he does not.

He said that in his days as a trial lawyer he would have been charged with bribery had he offered money to jurors he was trying to win over.

"In Washington, when they do it, it's called politics," Edwards said.

So Johnny, which company gave her what money to do what, and did she do it?
Or are you just a blankety blank who'll say anything in a press release to smear your opponent?

[Inspired]

42. I agree with Edwards on this.

It appeals to the Democrat in me.

[Ninga]

2. Yowzer!

[Ninga]

3. K & R for John Edwards

[Yael]

4. Chantix is an interesting case

That is Pfizer's new stop smoking drug.

It was fast-tracked through the FDA and is being touted as a 'miracle drug' by the industry. First one in many years.

I have never seen an advertizement for it though. All was done through word of mouth on the net and from Doctors while it was still in clinicals.

An example of how something like Edwards is proposing could work!

[tekisui]

8. knr!

[lildreamer316]

15. There's a story I saw on here (I think) about it..

some guy was taking it and went crazy...knocked on his neighbor's door at some ungodly hour and got shot to death.

I will try to find a link.

[Yael]

18. Yes -- a Musician. I saw that

I have been taking it for a few weeks. To me, it is a wonder drug! 3 others where I work are also taking it and so far we are 4 for 4.

[lildreamer316]

30. Well that's good!

I hoped that wasn't a harbringer of things to come. Glad it is working so well!

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

32. Chantix has been advertised on TV------I've seen ads within

the last 2 weeks.

They jumped out at me because I'm a smoker and, no,I will never take this drug. I don't trust them.

[JTFrog]

69. I absolutely loathe big pharma

but I loathe the tobacco industry just as much. Chantix helped my husband stop after 30 years of smoking over a pack of day. It took about two months.

I'm sorry but there is some slight irony in your post.

*Edit - However, I think your doctor should be the one telling you this, not a 30 second blurb during Fox News. And I don't think the doc should get a trip to Cancun next weekend for suggesting it.

[proud patriot]

5. I have got to Kick this one

Right ON John Edwards . I completely agree about those stupid commercials .

They have got to go

[Moochy]

6. Great Issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HskNWgpT0m4

"because side effects of Mirapex include extreme sexual and gambling urges, and narcolepsy."

[Liberal Veteran]

7. How a total ban on DTC prescription drug advertising?

One of the worst things that ever happened was when they allowed them to start advertising to consumers.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Agreed... either ban it or allow it, but...

to suggest that the high cost of medicine is the advertising is idiotic.

In reality, it should be banned. ALL advertising, including kickbacks to doctors, swag, etc.

[Yael]

19. Over 30% of pharma's budget is sales and marketing

That not only includes advertizing, but also the reps that visit doctors.

Typically 18% - 20% is R&D

(I have family in the industry -- these have been averages for the past 5 years or so).

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Its a very narrow way of looking at it.

The reason 30% of the budget is in sales and marketing is b/c it generates revenue greater than the cost. Remove the sales and marketing budget and revenue drops and although you may spend a bigger % of your money on R&D you will actually wind up spending less.

The reason companies spend money in sales and marketing is because it more than pays for itself.

Rather than attacking some SYMPTOM of the problem (which is all attacking the ads is), Edwards should consider attacking the source, but he is too afraid to do so. The SOURCE is the PROFIT in health care.

[cuke]

65. I think that's a rather narrow way to look at it

Their marketing produces no public good, and much harm. Instead of having drugs being prescribed solely on the basis of how well they perform (with consideration to expense), drugs are prescribed on the basis of which corporation sends the cutest sales reps to hawk their wares.

[phen43]

16. sorry, off topic, but I love your cats!!!

[thetaoofterri]

79. I couldn't agree with you more...

I don't think people are stupid, but I don't think consumers are in a position to decide which prescription drug is best for them and to pressure theirs doctors for them.

[L0oniX]

9. Perm ban on all drug advertisement ...including alcohol !

[lildreamer316]

Yeah..it's not like alcohol sales would really suffer.

I mean, everyone knows where to get alcohol. Duh.

[Froward69]

63. Second!!!

[FloridaJudy]

91. Third!

Do we really need ads for a substance that causes that much social harm? We got rid of the cigarette ads. We should apply the same logic to alcohol.

And I want all prescription drug adds gone. I work in the medical field, and the number of patients coming in and demanding such-and-such a drug because they'd seen some feel-good ad is unbelievable. It might not be the right drug: it may be a problem that doesn't need a drug at all, but a life-style change, which is a heckuvalot harder on both patient and practitioner than popping a pill. Helping someone lose weight, start exercising, eat better, quit smoking/drinking, address mental health problems, practice safer sex, etc. takes a lot more time and energy than just writing a prescription. Medications have their place in all these issues, but the drug advertising promises easy answers to complex problems that they can't deliver.

Edwards' proposal is a good start. The serious drawbacks to many drugs don't show up until they've been used for a few years (see Vioxx, PhenFen, Avandia, Procrit, Prempro, ad nauseum). Advertising new drugs would at least limit the damage.

edited for spelling

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Well, with no issue left, I guess he has lost his mind.

Yes, the problem in the drug industry is the ADVERTISING.

In reality, advertising drives DOWN the cost of the medication, but we won't let reality get in his way... blame the ads, its an easy target.

[tired_old_fireman]

31. How does advertising drive down the cost?

They're spending a lot on advertising. It seems like if you take out the cost of advertising, the drugs could be sold cheaper...I'm obviously missing something. Can you please explain it?

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Because advertising works.

The reason companies advertising is because when you are done, you generate more revenue than the cost of the advertising.

For example. Lets say product A and product B have the same basic function.

Product A has no advertising and sells 1000 units for $1.00 each. The cost of each unit is .25, so they make $750. (production = $250 (1000 * .25) price sold = $1000 (1000 * $1.00) profit = $750 (1000-250)

Everything for Product B is the same EXCEPT they spend $500 on advertising and sell 2000 units for $1.00 each because of the increased demand for people who know the product B name. Profit = Total sales (2000 *1) $2000 - 1000 (Production (2000 * .25 = $500) + Advertising $500) = $1000

At the end of the day, the makers of product B can actually sell product B for LESS MONEY, because they advertised to increase demand.

This proves out in just about every single business model UNLESS you have a crappy product.. however, if your product does what is asked, the advertising costs will increase sales to an extent greater than the advertisement cost, thus, allowing cost of the product to be lowered.

Now one might say, Well, why don't the makers of product A just lower the price and increase demand, by selling the same thing at a lower price... HOWEVER, There is a psychological aspect to this. MOST People will go for what they know and trust, over the nameless cheaper product (product depending of course)



So, take this application to a drug company... like an sleeping pill. There are 5 or 6 different pills that all essentially preform the same function or variations of it. To cover the costs involved in producing the pills, R&D, etc.. they may have to charge $25.00 per pill. HOWEVER, if they run a national ad and try to convince people who may have insomnia to go to the doctor and say the word "ambien", they may triple their sales and can sell the same pill for $20.00 because demand is so much higher. Yes, there is a cost of advertising; HOWEVER, advertising is designed to work, so that the cost is made up in the increased volume of sales.


The problem with what Edwards is proposing (in essence nearly ALL of what Edwards proposes) is that it doesn't address THE PROBLEM, which is the profit in the health care industry. The fact is the company has an interest in convincing doctors to hawk their pill over another and with so many pills, doctors lose track and maybe someone who should be taking something else, winds up taking ambien b/c someone who is nothing more than a sales rep told some untruth to a doctor about a side effect, or the company buried some specific trial b.c they knew it would result in slower sales.

Advertising isn't the problem... it is a symptom of a cause. Advertising is what companies due to increase revenue... companies making products specifically for the health of a nation should not be primarily driven by consumer profit.

[Triana]

38. So...When Edwards says we need to get insurance companies and HMOs out...

...from between patients and their doctors, he's NOT addressing the problem of PROFIT in the healthcare industry?

I certainly think he IS addressing that, separately.

EDIT: AND...knowing Edwards' record on protecting consumers from corprat predatory practices, this is another reason (besides cost) that it's a good reason to do away with direct-to-consumer advertising from pharmaceutical companies. Consumer SAFETY. Do you really think that when a pharmaceutical company is out to make money (when are they NOT?), that they care that much about the safety of their products? HOW MANY products have been allowed on the market that were later found to be UNsafe - AFTERWARDs? Do you TRUST the FDA to vet these products before they are allowed to market them? Because guess what. The FDA doesn't. They require testing. They don't DO the testing - they simply require certain reports that it's been done. If a drug company shows that some testing has been done and the product is "safe", it's allowed on the market and the drug companies are allowed to advertise it (whether it's really safe or not).

Direct-to-consumer advertising certainly increases sales. In the case of unsafe drugs that the FDA has approved, it also increases the liklihood that even more people will be made ill, debilated, or die due to those drugs.

It's a bad idea all round - EXCEPT for the pharmaceutical companies, of course.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Too bad his plan doesn't follow his rhetoric.

Which is EXACTLY the problem with Edwards and why I would never vote for him.

He SAYS one thing and then DOES another... and that has been his entire career... except when he was pro war... then he said it AND did the same thing, helping to lead us to war.

[Triana]

41. Tell us about how his plan doesn't follow his "rhetoric"

Details?

Whose healthcare plan(s) do you prefer? And why?

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Gore, Kucinich.

As for Edwards' plan you can actually read about it on his website.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/

Require businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
Make insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
Create regional Health Care Markets purchasing pools to give every American the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
Once these steps have been taken, require all American residents to get insurance.

Every part of his plan involves getting people INSURANCE, not health care. It winds up continuing to feed into the problem, which is the middle man system.

Just like his tax plan, he fails to follow through on his rhetoric.

[Triana]

46. You missed the "non-profit" part...

" New Health Care Markets. The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create regional Health Care Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance plans. At least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare. All plans will include comprehensive benefits, including full mental health benefits. Families and businesses could choose to supplement their coverage with additional benefits. The markets will be available to everyone who does not get comparable insurance from their jobs or a public program and to employers that choose to join rather than offer their own insurance plans. The benefits of Health Care Markets include..."

and this:

"Our health care system is predominantly fee-for-service: providers are paid for each treatment, regardless of its necessity or quality. For example, a hospital that botches a surgery is often paid for the error and then paid again to fix it. Our system should pay doctors for results, encouraging better, more efficient care. Under Edwards' plan, Medicare and the Health Care Markets will lead the way, paying higher rates to plans and providers that provide the very best care, lowering premiums for high-quality plans, and penalizing plans that fail to meet critical, easily quantifiable goals such as childhood immunization rates."

..

"John Edwards believes that we must achieve universal health coverage as quickly as possible. To get there, all parts of our society must share responsibility. Edwards will make a historic effort to make insurance affordable and easy to obtain through new regional Health Care Markets, tax credits, and expanded Medicaid and children's health insurance programs."

NOTE the above does NOT say through more INSURANCE companies - and that all these items listed above are publicly funded and/or otherwise gov't subsidized or managed? (ie: NOT managed by insurance companies?)

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Wow, he really suckered you, didn't he?

This is exactly what I am talking about and why John Edwards is so dangerous. He can trick people really easily who desperately WANT to believe he is saying something he isn't...

You didn't even read the whole line.

"non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance plans."

A non profit PURCHASHING POOL does not equal a NON PROFIT insurance company.

This is a trick of language to make you think he is taking the profit out of health care, when, in fact, he is doing a slight of hand to use the words, but not actually address the problem.

You have highlighted PERFECTLY why I would work so hard to keep John Edwards out of office.

[Triana]

53. No. I like his plan. He's my choice for President. If he's not yours...

...more power to ya. You've a right to your own opinions.

But they don't change MINE.

[Milo_Bloom]

57. As long as you don't try to claim he is saying things he isn't...

... Which is what you just did in your post, claiming he is talking about a not for profit health care system.

He creates rhetoric that SOUNDS like that is what he is saying, but it isn't what his plan is.

[Triana]

58. Maybe you oughtta stop claiming he's NOT saying things that he IS

...just because he's not "your" candidate.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. I'm not. I proved his rhetoric doesn't match his plan.

You mis-understood his plan and though the rhetoric matched.

Even after learning the truth, you still choose him as a candidate worth supporting. That is your choice, but the reality is, his health care plan is a continuation of the exact same for-profit system we have today, just giving more money to insurance companies.

[Triana]

71. You haven't proved a thing except that you are a Kucinich supporter....

...and prefer him over Edwards - and that's fine too.

[Milo_Bloom]

85. I only proved what you claimed was wrong.

That's all I was after.

[loudsue]

83. You have "proved" nothing.

Go away. :hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

86. When Edwards is safely out of the race, I will be happy to leave his positions alone.

[LSK]

81. wow, talk about missing the point

His plan of medicare like health markets will totally undercut ALL the insurance companies with much lower costs, higher efficiency and more coverage.

Edwards plan is genius as he lets the market place destroy the insurance companies.

My only question is, who's campaign do you work for?

[tired_old_fireman]

48. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess the real issue with advertising prescription drugs is that ideally the doctor should choose the patient's medication based on his/her years of study and experience . When a patient tells the doctor to prescribe a certain medication based on a 30 second ad, it is crazy.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!

For the same reason, I wouldn't want drug companies "advertising" to doctors.

A doctor shouldn't prescribe medicine because the sales rep gave them a really cool pen or tickets to a laker game, etc..

[xultar]

74. My sleeping pill RX costs me 1.73. My Dr. chose my pill, vs Ambien

or Lunesta which would have been over 20 bucks.

Now, If I'd told my dr. that I wanted Ambien or Lunesta I wouldn't have gotten an RX that worked as well for me. But I would have gotten what I'm familiar with which means absolutely nothing.

In the end I saved $$ and received an RX that works wonderfully because my Dr used her years of experience to help me.

Advertising generates $$$. If it didn't they wouldn't do it. They aren't informing us in those commercials. They are giving us just enough information to get us to tell the DR that we want their drug. SIMPLE.

[sampsonblk]

75. Milo... No way

You are suggesting that a drug company might sell its product at half the profit margin if they advertise successfully?

By advertising their drugs and creating a perceived dire need, these drug companies are able to charge huge prices for their drugs and preserve their profit margins.

[zalinda]

77. One of the ways advertising is the problem

is that many people wouldn't be on the drugs if it wasn't for advertising. They go into their doctor's office and ask for the drug. Not only ask for the drug, but INSIST on it. Many doctors will just go along with this. They still get their office fee, and they get a difficult patient off their backs. I don't see why any drug that has to be prescribed should be advertised to the public. The public does not know medicine. But the drug companies know, that the more they advertise it, the more people will want it, just the same as politicians.

zalinda

[phen43]

11. Good idea!!!

[saltpoint]

12. Some arrangement would have to be made regarding the First Amendment

versus the rights of pharmaceuticals to "inform the public."

That said, I'm also sick of the ads and feel the millions spent in manipulating public opinion, while fully legal, is a questionable ethical practice. Current law also sanctions psychiatrists, for example, who prescribe a given antidepressant or antipsychotic etc to also own stock in the pharmaceutical companies which own that drug's patent. In other instances a question is raised of conflict of interest; not so with the drug companies.

There's way too much advertising for a given compound and not enough dialogue at all on health care.

The pharmaceuticals will have to become part of the solution instead of peripherally (or directly) part of the problem.

Edwards is right on.

[adnelson60087]

25. I don't believe the first amendment is an issue here

as I am certain any law that was considered would be integrate advertising with stringent FDA testing, which for the most part is missing today.

[saltpoint]

26. I'd sure be for it. Purchase of public air time, though, remains

constitutional, I thought.

No?

[goodgd_yall]

29. Oh, yeah, the ol' "Corporate Personhood"

Rights of pharmaceuticals. :puke:

Of course, you're right that this could become an argument that could douse this idea, but I like it nonetheless.

We just need to get rid of this coporate personhood bs. :grr:

[Triana]

39. Agreed - get RID of the corprat "personhood" crap (n/t)

[saltpoint]

54. I strongly queston the Republicans when they use the argument against

the men and women who are in effect the total fuel for those corporations' success.

The law does not prohibit corporations from purchasing public air time, so far as I know.

I'm guessing there would be claims of exclusional prohibition by those companies' legal arms and that if Frank Rich is permitted to blast Bush every Sunday in the NYTIMES, Corporation A, B, or C is likely permitted to buy advertising time, whether they are pharmaceuticals or not. I'm guessing. A DUer who knows the legal ropes needs to help me on this one.

Edwards' emphasis is obviously in the right direction and I hope a way through can be found. My enthusiasm for the sentiment against the pharmaceuticals has to do especially with their emphasis on market control (sometimes or often at the expense of the public health interest) and that that emphasis precludes a healthy clinical environment for their scientists. Would love to see the marketing toned WAY down and the scientific discovery aspect racheted way UP.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. You could make it such that in order to get FDA approval you agree not to advertise

That would not be a violation of the first amendment.

[saltpoint]

55. Sounds like a possibiity. So first off, we'd need a dedicated Democratic

president to appoint folks at the FDA, maybe... start out on the right foot.

____
Also: very nice to see Senator Wellstone's image in your field. I miss him a lot.

[lildreamer316]

14. I could not agree more. I wish it was a two-year ban on ALL drug ads!

Ah well, I can dream.....

[yy4me]

17. This is great! Edwards comes up with great ideas, time after

time. He offers logical proposals that will produce...step by step...solutions to many of our most critical problems. I find myself shaking my head in agreement at each of his proposals. He is giving us his platform, not a big dose of how great he is, like most of the other Presidential wanna-be's.

On this drug an proposal, those billions saved could be money better used to develop drugs to cure some of the worlds greatest ills. If a drug company finds a cure for some major illness, they will not have to advertise. All of them keep the medical community up-to-date on their new products and the media will spread the word.

An additional bonus for the Doctors would be the ton of time saved answering questions by patients who have no idea what a drug is for and respond to the "ask your doctor about "XXXX", it might be right for you. A close member of my family is an MD and tells us that the medical community is up to their gills in this "Ask your Doc" stuff. The Doctors know what you need, they don't need a drug company to buy air time to tell all of us to ask them if we need some new drug.

[Not Me]

20. This is a great idea...

My doctor HATES when people come in and demand (insert Rx drug here) to fix their ailments.
He's pretty thorough and I believe that he can better serve his patients when he doesn't have to overcome their self-diagnosis.

I'd have no problem with a ban on advertising to consumers altogether. It's not like the prescribers don't know what's available.

[Nutmegger]

23. Thank you John Edwards.

:thumbsup::applause::kick:

[Hieronymus]

24. Edwards keeps winning in Democratic polls.

[bicentennial_baby]

27. Should be banned altogether though...

like all other industrialized nations...

[goodgd_yall]

28. Good idea

I look forward to a Democrat who is not afraid to regulate corporations.

Go, John, go!

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

33. All drug advertising should be banned. It was better when the

ban was in place.

We all want a quick-fix,that's human nature,and the drug companies feed on that desire.

[CTyankee]

35. Sometimes they can have the reverse effect.

I had an overweight friend who was very interested in the pills (or maybe that substance they were adding to potato chips, I don't remember exactly) that were offered a while back to keep you from gaining weight. When she saw the commercial and heard the warning "explosive diarrhea may occur unexpectedly" she became NOT interested!

[Tejanocrat]

36. The top ten pharmaceutical companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined,

and yet their research budgets are still just 40 percent of their marketing budgets. From 1997 to 2005, for example, the amount spent on direct-to-consumer marketing tripled while research budgets remained stagnant. Now, drug companies spend about $19 billion annually on marketing to doctors and over $4 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising. The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the entire world where direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs is legal, and New Zealand is in the process of banning that practice.

[ChiciB1]

37. WOW! & KICK! Go, Johnny. Go! n/t

[Sandaasu]

43. Things like this are why he edges out the others for me (n/t)

[IndianaJones]

50. I can get behind that. nt.

[FatDave]

51. Up until a couple weeks ago, I was on th fence between Obama and Edwards

Not anymore. Seems like every day, my support for Edwards grows a little more.

[Triana]

52. SAFETY is also a reason for Edwards' policy on this:

(as I pointed out in another post in this thread)

THIS from his website:

" (6) Protect Patients against Dangerous Medicines. Recent drug recalls such as Vioxx have raised concerns about drug safety. Edwards will restrict direct-to-consumer advertising for new drugs to ensure that consumers are not misled about the potential dangers of newly marketed drugs and strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's ability to monitor new drugs after they reach the marketplace. He will also ensure that researchers evaluating medical devices and drugs are truly independent."

[Catchawave]

56. Here's the entire Press Release/plan:

from email:

EDWARDS INTRODUCES PROPOSALS TO STOP MISLEADING DRUG MARKETING BY STANDING UP TO DRUG COMPANIES



Instead of defending healthcare lobbyists and drug companies, Edwards is standing up for the American people as part of seven-day “Stand Strong” campaign



(Manchester, NH) – Arriving in New Hampshire today as part of a seven-day “Stand Strong” campaign, Senator John Edwards introduced proposals to stand up to drug companies to stop misleading drug advertising.



“The excessive costs of prescription drugs are straining family budgets and contributing to runaway health care costs,” said Edwards. “Since the government relaxed direct-to-consumer advertising rules in 1997, drug ads have nearly quadrupled to over $4 billion a year.



“With such aggressive and often misleading drug company marketing, it’s too easy for advertising – instead of doctors or proven results – to influence families’ health decisions. But the FDA has been an ineffective watchdog, reviewing only a small fraction of ads. It’s time to stand up to the drug companies and their lobbyists who have rigged the system. It’s time to stand strong for families, patients, and doctors.”



Edwards believes that new drugs should succeed by treating patients well and cost-effectively, not through lobbying and public relations efforts. To improve the quality of care and bring down drug costs, he will:



Delay New Ads to Put Safety First: Edwards will institute a two-year delay on consumer advertising of all new drugs.



Get Control with Real Oversight of Advertising: Edwards will give the Food and Drug Administration real power to prevent misleading drug ads by requiring the agency’s approval before drug companies can launch major ad campaigns and by increasing the penalties for drug companies that violate truth-in-advertising laws.



Require “Whole Truth” Disclosures: Edwards will improve drug makers’ disclosures to the public, requiring companies to tell the public the whole truth about side effects and how effective drugs are against placebos and existing alternatives.



Help Doctors Make Decisions Based on Evidence, Not Ads: Edwards will establish a non-profit or public organization to research the best methods of providing care.



Edwards’ proposals to stop misleading drug advertising build on his plan to provide universal health care for all Americans. Edwards was the first presidential candidate to propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America. Under his plan, the government will make insurance affordable through new tax credits and by leading the way toward more cost-effective care. Businesses will cover their employees or help pay their premiums. New regional “Health Care Markets” will give individuals, families and businesses purchasing power and a choice of quality plans, including one public plan. Finally, once these steps have been taken, all American residents will be required to take responsibility and get insurance.



Edwards would pay for these reforms primarily by repealing the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 a year. And to ensure that health care reform is a legislative priority, Edwards will submit legislation on the first day of his administration that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in both the executive and legislative branches of government on July 20th, 2009 unless universal health care legislation that meets four specific, non-negotiable principles has been passed by that date.



During the week-long “Stand Strong” campaign, Edwards is traveling across Iowa and New Hampshire to discuss his bold and detailed proposals for health care reform, smart and safe trade policies, ending the war in Iraq and restoring America’s moral authority in the world. One of the highlights of the week was a major policy address he gave on Friday in Des Moines on corporate responsibility. Edwards called for updating the social compact with hard-working Americans to protect them from abuse by corporations and help them achieve financial security in the new economy.



“Real strength comes from standing up for the millions of American families who don’t have a voice,” said Edwards. “We need a leader in the White House who has the strength and courage to stand up and fight for regular Americans rather than someone who defends the lobbyists that are destroying the better America we all believe in.”



Further details of Edwards’ proposal for “Standing Up to Drug Companies to Stop Misleading Drug Marketing” are included below.



-30-



Standing Up to Drug Companies to Stop Misleading Drug Marketing


The high cost of prescription drugs are contributing to runaway health care costs that strain family budgets and make American businesses less competitive in the world. Aggressive, often misleading drug company marketing is increasingly influencing families’ health decisions. Since the government relaxed direct-to-consumer advertising rules in 1997, the ads have nearly quadrupled to over $4 billion a year. Advertising spending has grown twice as fast as drug companies’ spending on research and development. Meanwhile, prescription prices have risen three times faster than inflation and doctors sometimes prescribe name-brand drugs despite the availability of equally effective, less expensive generic drugs.

John Edwards believes patients should receive the drug that is most appropriate and cost-effective for them, based on the medical science and the recommendations of their doctors. As president, he will stand up to drug companies and get control over our dysfunctional health care system.

· Contributing to Rising Prescription Drug Costs: Prescription drug spending is rising, and researchers attribute at least 12 percent of increased sales to direct-to-consumer advertising. The price of drugs has also skyrocketed, up an average of 8 percent a year since 1994. Brand name prescriptions average $111 today, triple the price of generics. Since the mid-90s, Americans’ prescription use has increased by over 50 percent, to an average of 12 per patient.

· Impact of Heavy Advertising: Top companies spend twice as much on marketing and administration as they do on research and development. It works: every dollar of advertising increases prescription sales by $4.20. Doctors report that pressure to prescribe name-brand drugs raises costs, strains doctor-patient relationships, and can lead to unnecessary prescriptions.

· Promoting Ineffective and Even Dangerous Drugs: It is too easy for heavy advertising—not results—to influence treatments. The intestinal drug Zelnorm was less than 10 percent more effective than a sugar pill, but its memorable ad campaign showing writing on women’s bare waists drove 500,000 Americans to buy it. After months of heavy marketing and nearly $1 billion in sales, it was withdrawn for causing heart attacks and strokes. And the controversial COX2 class of pain killers—which includes recalled drugs Bextra and Vioxx—were some of the most heavily promoted drugs in history.



· Ineffective Watchdog: The Food and Drug Administration reviews only a small fraction of ads, voluntarily submitted by drug companies with no requirement of pre-approval. FDA delays result in more than half of misleading ads going off the air or out of circulation before the companies receive a warning. In 2004-2005 it issued only 19 regulatory letters about misleading ads and they came an average of 8 months after the ads began.



· Heavy Washington Lobbying to Protect Billions in Profit: Last year, the ten largest pharmaceutical companies posted a 21 percent profit margin, compared to 8 percent for entire Fortune 500. Drug companies have influenced Washington to protect these profits, spending over $1 billion lobbying and $67 million in campaign contributions since 2000 on their legislative priorities – including successfully fighting tougher advertising restrictions in the recent FDA bill.





Edwards’ Plan to Stop Misleading Drug Ads




John Edwards believes that new drugs should succeed by treating patients well and cost-effectively, not through lobbying and public relations efforts. To improve the quality of care and bring down drug costs, he will:



· Delay New Ads to Put Safety First: Often, serious safety issues appear only after a drug has hit the market. Edwards will institute a two-year delay on consumer advertising of all new drugs, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine and the American Medical Association. A delay will ensure that well-informed doctors – not high-paid advertising consultants – drive prescriptions in the early phases before Americans know the full effects of new drugs.



· Get Control with Real Oversight of Advertising: Edwards will give the Food and Drug Administration real power to prevent misleading drug ads by requiring the agency’s approval before drug companies can launch major ad campaigns. He will also increase the penalties for drug companies that violate truth-in-advertising laws.



· Require “Whole Truth” Disclosures: Edwards will improve drug makers’ disclosures to the public, requiring companies to tell the public the whole truth about side effects and how effective drugs are against placebos and existing alternatives. As a result, drug companies will no longer be able to advertise costly “me-too” drugs without disclosing the existence of less costly alternatives. He will also require drug companies to disclose foreseeable side effects from implants of medical devices, which are not disclosed today.



· Help Doctors Make Decisions Based on Evidence, Not Ads: Edwards will establish a non-profit or public organization – possibly within the Institute of Medicine – to research the best methods of providing care, drawing upon data from Medicare and the Health Care Markets and medical experts from across the nation. The center will perform head-to-head testing of drugs, as well as devices, to see which work best for specific conditions and populations. It will quickly and widely disseminate its unbiased, scientific findings to physicians and patients. In addition, the FDA will require drug companies to conduct head-to-head testing prior to approving new drugs.

[MichDem10]

59. Sen. Edwards - Always LEADING the way!!

[Froward69]

62. Um no, not really

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhCJ6h_p0GA&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

[Froward69]

61. Only two years??????

we and new Zealand are the only countries ON THE PLANET exposed to "Explosive Oily Discharge" commercials! Still to cozy with Pharmaceuticals I think! (companies)

[toughboy]

64. There he goes again.

This was suggested by many during the writing of PDUFA, and has been around for several years. Also, since no drug company has ever opened their books to allow for the actual cost of the development of a drug, it's pretty difficult to determine what the percentages are for marketing, etc.

DTC advertising is a moot point for all but the heavily insured who can get whatever they want covered through their insurers while affording the co-pays. Entitlement programs and state assistance programs, as well as insurers, determine just what people can and can't get as far as drugs are concerned.

In the same, extremely tired fashion, Edwards is taking a hot button issue and trying to make it sound like he could do something about it. Why doesn't he get SCHIP passed then?

[Froward69]

67. Good point.

[toughboy]

97. Biden is a recovered BSer. He's not polished as a campaigner, but I believe

he believes what he says. I have to respect that.

[LSK]

82. Hes in Congress right now? I didnt know that...

:wtf:

[toughboy]

96. Surely anyone concerned about health care as a Presidential

candidate, in Congress or not, followed the development of PDUFA closely.

[Dewlso]

66. Thank God

It is about time they do something about the ads ran by the pharmaceutical companies. I hate watching TV and then a commercial for Zoloft, Cymbalta, Levitra, or Viagra comes on. I have no use for those. And people should not be brand shopping for those drugs. It should be up to the doctors to decide what is best for you. These ads give people the impression that you need to tell your doctor that you want whatever. The worst part is that the commercials aren't that entertaining. A waste of 1 - 2 minutes if you ask me. I am glad someone is addressing the issue. Next we should go after the infomercials. Infomercials are a testament to the evil of ronald ray gun.

[Froward69]

68. A two year moratorium is nothing

Drug adds need to be banned altogether. someone else has previously vowed to take on the drug companies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhCJ6h_p0GA&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

[Justyce]

88. Cialis... those are the WORST. Do all old people bathe outside after sex?

LOL

[Justyce]

89. Oops, self-delete.

Itchy finger double-clicked the submit button.... ;)

[JTFrog]

70. K&R! n/t

[L0oniX]

72. But I need to know when they come out with a drug for "restless dick syndrome".

:sarcasm:

[Moochy]

76. Combine side effects for maximum effect

Let's be honest, it's the reading of the side effects that make these drug ads watchable.

I think if you mix 2 parts Mirapex* with an Enzyte** chaser, you'll be right in that RDS zone.
* "Gambling and sexual urges"
** "stiffy pill"

What they need to do is combine the erection pills with a hair growing pill.

[harun]

73. Great idea John (you the man) n/t)

[donsu]

78. right on! go John!

nt

[redqueen]

80. Hah... I like this.

:thumbsup:

[2rth2pwr]

84. How about a ban on John Edwards campaign commercials?

"skipping through the fields holding hands with your spouse."..? How about- "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is President, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_edwards.html

You've seen his ads. You know who's paying for them, right? You are! Edwards to Accept Public Financing

[Moochy]

90. No, a ban on new prescription drug ads is what the OP is about

What was i supposed to be mad at ? Mission not accomplished, bucky.

[2rth2pwr]

92. moochy's calling me bucky?! LOL! nt

[Moochy]

93. Bucky is as Bucky does

RAWR now who am i supposed to be mad at fer takin mah hard earned tax dollars fer a hair cut commercial?

[2rth2pwr]

94. kthxbai. nt

[mzmolly]

87. Geeze, I love that man more each day. I think he's finding his groove.

:toast: to JE

[ProudDad]

95. Ban ALL drug ads from all media!!!

Prescription drug advertising is a major cause of the high price of drugs and is a major cause of prescription drug abuse...

Ban ALL drug advertising -- including beer... (especially beer!)

[Ediacara]

98. This doesn't go far enough

As far as I'm concerned if a drug company wants to advertise at all (TV, radio, print, lunch with doctors), they should be denied patents. Period. If half of the cost of a drug goes into ads, then there should be a cheap alternative.