Drug and Insurance Commercials

I know that many of you have seen all the commercials on TV about this drug and that drug or all the Commercials about Insurance for this or that.

I looked up what it cost for running these 30 second commercials just for air time its between $84,000 up to $425,000, all depending on what day and time and what show is playing, and this don't even count the cost to make the commercial.

So you really want to know why our Medications and Insurances are so high this is has to have a Hugh impact on the cost to all of us, so the question is why do they advertise so much, are the doctors not the ones that are to inform us of what medications do for us and prescribe them, for insurance commercials, either health home auto ect same thing would apply.

I guess the only reason that I can come up with for all this advertisement is their bottom line and Wall street and the investors, they have to show growth.

How about cut the commercials down, lower the premiums so this way everyone can afford their products, I also believe that any drug company that receives and type of Grants for research and development the government should cap the cost on what the drug would cost the public, this way those that need life saving medications are not paying with their lives because they cant afford it.

What your thoughts on this?

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

It's the "free" market.

Who cares if the same 40,000$ a year drug costs one fifth in a different country.

The system needs change, in fact with the situation you described, it is BEGGING for change.

The political system is supposed to protect the voters (citizens) from things like this.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I greatly dislike the fact that drug companies are advertising directly to the consumer. I for one am not knowledgeable enough to make a decision on the choice of using a drug. That is the Doctor's specialty and forte.

The onslaught of advertisements is because they need more sales to fund their research for new drugs. I accept that medical R&D is amazingly expensive and can take decades to ever see a profit, but this is just wrong.

As long as the ROI is more than the cost of the commercial they will keep doing it.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

Looks like they spend a lot more marketing it to the actual doctors and only a relatively small portion on TV commercials / direct consumer advertising.

In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $27 billion on drug promotion1— more than $24 billion on marketing to physicians and over $3 billion on advertising to consumers (mainly through television commercials)

Link

Either way 27 Billion is a lot of money!

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I greatly dislike the fact that drug companies are advertising directly to the consumer. .

me too. this bothers me

people should not have to ask the doc for some # they saw on tv.

We even get those ads here in Canada, from the American channels. As they cheerfully go through about 3 minutes of horrible side effects, ending with "can be fatal", I tend to wonder why anyone would want to take them at all.

a reply to: snowspirit

I think want has little to do with it.

a reply to: seasonal

Most of the time they don't tell you what the drug is even for...you have to go googling.....

If one has to take something like that, hopefully the person's doctors are informed.
They don't come on Canadian channels - I think advertising pharmaceuticals is as illegal as advertising cigarettes.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I saw a commercial this morning where they were hawking Botox as a migraine remedy. Of course most of the slot was them listing off the health warnings because botulinum toxin is one of the most deadly substances known to man.

Also, I remember reading somewhere that the US is the only country that allows pharma companies to advertise drugs on TV. It was a while ago and I'm not sure if it's still true.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I can't stand the DTC drug marketing schemes.

Let the doctors and their patients decide.

Everyone is hitting the drug companies what about all the Insurance adds for Medical, Auto Ect

you can turn the TV on in the US without having one or the other playing a commercial sometime back to back

the invest on return like one pointed out can easy be turned in to a Operating loss used for tax reasons, its all for profit for the companies and share holder and wall street

US drug commerical utterly baffle me - i admit it WHY ?

hear [ UK ] only drugs that are availiable OTC [ over the counter ] can be advertised ANYWHERE

any pharmecutical that requires a doctors sign off cannot be advertised

insurance is not really a valid topic of compasison as we have the NHS [ national health service ] which is no charge to users [ we pay for it via a tax on earnings called national insurance [ NI ] , NI also funds many social security benefuits and state pensions

we have private health insurers [ BUPA is the best know ] - they are allowed to advertise - but thier scope is limited - they offer no emergency medicine - but do a large percent of " elective " procedures - like cosmetic surgery

also - they are the way to " jump the queue " for stuff like a kne joint replacement - average NHS wait time - 6 months - BUPA can do it in 6 days if you are insured or will pay

i had BUPA when i was working - as i was self employed and could not afford to be off work waiting for a medical procedure - that could be queue jumped

there are charges for dentistry and opticians services - but you can get state help // full pay if you is low income

opticisans do advertise - but i dont think dentists can

hope that helps

a reply to: ignorant_ape

US drug commerical utterly baffle me

I live here and they baffle me too.

The UK got this one right.

If it weren't for lobbyists these adds wouldn't be legal.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I think you will find that health care (and this includes Pharmaceutical development) is so expensive in the USA, is because of the litigious nature of the USA. Doctors need to be insured, Pharma companies need to be insured etc.

So those advertisements include the list of "side effects" to warn users, as they can't trust Joe public to read the information that is supposed to come with them.

Now is there anything wrong with litigation? No. Is there something wrong with the ridiculous levels of "compensation" that are awarded? Yes.

If you look at court cases surrounding Vioxx in the mid 2000's, you will find that Merck got absolutely reamed in the settlements. As a consequence most Pharma companies backed away from similar (COx2 inhibitor) medications, just to avoid the pain.... on top of this, advertisements now listed the side effects.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

Valid consideration!! Why do we need commercials for prescription drugs, anyway?? We cannot go to the store and just purchase them, and need to see a doctor. Should we not assume the doctors are aware of various drugs for different conditions? If they aren't, I'd want a different doc! Add to that, for most of the drugs, the side effects are worse than whatever the drug is supposed to treat! Yet we see happy, healthy people running around, doing all sorts of fun things, to promote the drugs. That the companies can even afford commercials shows they overcharge!

Insurance companies....don't get me started! They can afford commercials, but refuse to pay claims?

When I was a kid, you couldn't advertise lawyers, doctors/procedures, prescription drugs.
On the other hand, advertising cigarettes, beer/booze was absolutely some of the best commercials around.
BTW, you wouldn't see condoms, maxipads, personal lubricants, or adult pampers advertising either.

There's so much money to be made - the only way to address the health care issues is to take the money out of prescription drugs - at least the excess profits. With a single payer system, price controls are going to be mandatory.
Some relief on the regulatory side also goes a long way towards easing the financial impact on big pharma.

Now what about INSURANCE? Really need to take the excess profit out of this sector - reduce insurance involvement in healthcare decisions to processing paperwork for a fee, rather than looking at the profitability of denying benefits. The current Medicare supplement/advantage plans have decent premiums (plus medicare premium), but the drug coverage is highly variable - with the drug benefit "donut hole", some months I pay $750 just for my prescriptions.

The economy is going to take a hit. Boo hoo. In the long run, single payer is a social imperative and a practical necessity. We have far too many people dependent on pharmaceuticals to maintain their health - those folks now live longer, increasing their dependence on pharmaceuticals over time. Escalating costs are unsustainable, if the public is unable to maintain at least their current level of health care.

ganjoa