Direct to consumer advertising : the case for greater consumer control

A nyone traveling to the United States from countries other than New Zealand will be surprised by the prevalence of health-related advertisements on television, including ads for drugs. Typically, these TV ads follow a pattern: an ad for a burger at only 99 cents, followed by one for a proton-pump inhibitor, then an ad on healthy home-cooked food delivered directly to your home and an ad for a home-based abdominal workout DVD, followed by an ad for a lipid-lowering drug. There are, however, nuances. After 8 pm, the visitor might encounter an ad for the "little blue pill." This sequence sometimes includes an ad featuring antihistamines for allergic rhinitis in spring and one promoting antidepressants in the winter. Such direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is usual business in the United States and New Zealand but is prohibited in the rest of the world. Why? Because DTCA for prescribing drugs has pros and cons (discussed elsewhere,1-3 including in JGIM4) that are balanced differently in different countries. Constitutional factors-such as the First Amendment protections on speech, including commercial speech, in the United States5 -as well as patient and population safety considerations, which all differ across countries, modulate reactions to DTCA. Additionally, lack of robust data on the impact of DTCA on prescription drug use adds to the confusion. Evidence, though limited, suggests that DTCA increases drug sales. However, whether the increase in sales corrects existing underuse or encourages over/misuse is not clear