September 21, 2007
The Marketing of Drugs - Part IV
THE pharmaceutical industry defends its promotional spending as a
service to science, physicians and patients. Advertising to patients
helps motivate them to improve their health, manufacturers say, and
detailing doctors keeps them abreast of new therapies and scientific
advances.
Those activities also, indisputably, boost sales. As marketing budgets
climbed toward a 2006 high of $28 billion, sales of prescription drugs
have never been higher. According to estimates published by the Kaiser
Family Foundation, the number of individual prescriptions filled in
the United States rose from 2.9 billion in 1999 to 3.7 billion in
2006; in 1994, Kaiser calculated that each American filled on average
7.9 prescriptions per year, including refills; by 2005, that number
had risen to 12.4.
For every 10% increase in direct-to-consumer advertisements within a
class of similar drugs, sales of drugs in that class (say,
antidepressants or erectile dysfunction drugs) went up 1%, Kaiser
found in a 2003 study. In 2000, direct-to-consumer advertising alone
boosted drug sales 12%, at an additional cost of $2.6 billion to
consumers and insurers.
Of more than 10,000 drugs on the U.S. pharmaceutical market, half of
all marketing budgets are used to promote 50 brand-name medications,
according to a 2003 study in the journal Clinical Therapy. And those
50 drugs are the ones that sell the best.
Prodding patients to prod their physicians, apparently, works. In
2006, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of 834 office-based physicians
found that 28% of doctors said patients “frequently” asked for
prescription drugs by name after seeing an advertisement. Although
about half said they typically responded by suggesting lifestyle
changes, 14% of the physicians said they would, in many cases,
prescribe a different drug in the same class as the one the patient
requested. And 5% readily acknowledged that they frequently would
prescribe the drug the patient requested.
Physicians see marketing’s effects on their patients every day. But
ask the doctors whether the marketing influences their clinical
judgments or prescribing behavior, and a chill will descend upon the
room, say those who have run the experiment.
“Physicians are heavily socialized to believe that they have risen
above the normal human foibles,” said Harvard University’s David
Blumenthal, co-author of the most recent survey detailing doctor-drug
company interactions. “They clearly recognize that physicians are
human and subject to normal human influences; they just have a lot of
trouble seeing themselves as subject to that.”
Not immune to marketing
BLUMENTHAL finds it revealing that most physicians do not extend to
their colleagues the same trust. In a widely cited 2001 study
published in the American Journal of Medicine, 84% of young physicians
surveyed said they believed that drug industry promotions, including
gifts and meals, influenced the prescribing practices of fellow
physicians. Although most of these doctors acknowledged they were
besieged by back-slapping, sample-toting, gift-giving drug
representatives, 61% said they considered themselves immune to
marketing’s effects.
They are not. A 1994 study found that hospital-based doctors were more
likely to request the addition of brand-name prescription drugs to
their institution’s medicine chest after they had met with sales
representatives detailing those drugs.
Studies published in 1988 and 1992 found that physicians who attended
continuing medical education programs sponsored by drug companies, or
who accepted funding for travel and lodging to attend them, were
significantly more likely to prescribe that company’s drug than those
who did not.
Several studies have found that physicians who accept and hand out
free samples to their patients are far more likely to prescribe those
drugs than those who don’t take or have no access to samples.
Last April, the online medical journal Public Library of Science
published a study tracking the effect of doctor-detailing by sales
reps working for Warner-Lambert, maker of the anti-epileptic drug
Neurontin. The study showed that, following even a brief encounter
with a marketing representative detailing Neurontin, almost half of
the 97 physicians examined found their briefings highly educational
(even when research evidence presented was scant or poor) and
indicated they would step up prescriptions of the drug.
Dr. Andrew Leuchter has spent much of the last two years heading a
UCLA committee convened to redraft guidelines for physicians’
interactions with drug companies. He has faced the skepticism of
physicians when the subject of drug company influence is raised.
“They ask, ‘Do you really think that my medical decision-making can be
influenced by the fact that someone bought me a pizza?’ ” Leuchter said.
“They’re quite sobered” when confronted with the mounting pile of
evidence that it can, he added.
Subtly powerful
DR. Kurt Stange, the editor of the Annals of Family Medicine who
called for an end to consumer advertising of drugs, said the effects
of a detailing visit can be subtle. But, he added, these encounters
are made all the more powerful when physicians either deny or ignore
their influence.
“You’re not overtly thinking, ‘I’m going to prescribe this drug
because I got a pen,” Stange said. “You’re just thinking, ‘What will
help this patient?’ and you’ve been bombarded with advertisements, and
the name is always before you. . . . You have to have a fair amount of
self-awareness to notice that.”
In the end, advocates of reform say, there is no stronger evidence
that drug marketing influences behavior than the simple fact that drug
companies do market their products — and that they are spending more
money doing it than ever before. The makers of the nation’s
bestselling drugs field on average 4,000 sales representatives to
detail doctors, staff booths at medical meetings and organize trips
and meals for doctors, and spend more than $1 billion per year to
market drugs to physicians alone. They spend, all told, roughly $5
billion a year to advertise directly to consumers. Though they are not
counted in marketing budgets, the funds they dispense to support
research, medical professional organizations and patient-advocacy
groups run into the billions.
In terms of cold, hard return-on-investment, that money was well
spent, says a study unveiled in 2001. Tracking prescription sales for
391 drugs and company marketing budgets from 1995 through 1999,
Dartmouth College marketing professor Scott Neslin has calculated,
down to the penny, how well increases in marketing pay off.
Each additional dollar spent on advertising in medical journals
brought $5 worth of sales of a drug, Neslin found, and an extra dollar
devoted to sponsorship of continuing medical education and
professional meetings yielded an average of $3.56 in sales. A dollar
spent on physician-detailing generated sales, on average, was worth
$1.72. But in the case of the most aggressively marketed drugs, that
dollar generated sales of more than $10.
Appealing directly to consumers was lucrative, Neslin found, but a
little less than wooing physicians. Each dollar spent on
direct-to-consumer advertising generated, on average, increased sales
of $1.37.
Such calculations flesh out a self-evident truth, said, UCLA’s Dr.
Martin Shapiro, a past president of the Society of General Internal
Medicine and an advocate of reform in the relationship: “These are
large and sophisticated organizations. . . . They would not be
spending that money if it didn’t work.”