Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) refers to the marketing and advertising of pharmaceutical products directly to consumers as patients, as opposed to specifically targeting health professionals. The term is synonymous primarily with the advertising of prescription medicines via mass media platforms—most commonly on television and in magazines, but also via online platforms.
Direct-to-consumer advertising is only completely legal in New Zealand and the United States, but are subject to regulations regarding the balanced disclosure of a prescription's benefits in comparison to its risks, among other factors.
There are ethical and regulatory concerns regarding DTCA, specifically the extent to which these ads may unduly influence the prescribing of the prescriptions based on consumer demands when, in some cases, they may not be medically necessary, or there are cheaper options available. Critics of DTCA have argued that too much is spent on marketing medications, rather than into research and development; in the United States, ad spending by drugmakers reached US$5.2 billion in 2016.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies a "Product claim" advertisement as one that identifies the name and trademark brand of the medication, and contains at least one approved indication for the drug, and claims surrounding its benefits.
A "reminder" advertisement serves to build brand recognition for a particular drug. In contrast to a product claim advertisement, they do not contain any information or imagery that pertains to the drug itself or how it functions (such as benefits or side effects), and contain a call to action urging viewers to ask their doctor or seek an external resource for more information. Reminder ads may include themes that vaguely allude to the drug's purpose: for example, a reminder commercial for the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra featured the showtune "Good Morning" and scenes of a man happily walking to work—emphasizing a sexual innuendo in the lyric "it's great to stay up late".
A "help-seeking" advertisement is not presented as marketing for a drug, but as an awareness campaign for a specific medical condition. They do not specify any specific product or treatment, and instead directs its audience to talk to their doctor, or access a resource (such as a phone hotline or a website) that, in turn, promotes specific prescription options. These awareness campaigns are sometimes used as preliminary marketing for new drugs.
Reminder and help-seeking ads are often used by drugmakers to bypass the more onerous restrictions (such as the required listing of side effects), or outright prohibitions on product claims advertising, as neither of them are focused on promoting the drug itself. Sometimes, a campaign may mix both of these ads, with one ad discussing the condition, and another, similarly-styled ad, mentioning the product but not the condition, seeking to have the viewer imply the association between the ads.
In 2008 a new resolution from ANVISA (Control Agency for Sanitary Vigilance), Resolution 96 from December 17 was released, with focus on medication advertisements. It allows direct-to-consumer advertising of non-prescription medication, with restrictions on the type of drug and words and images that can be used, among other things. Advertisements for prescription medications can only appear in scientific, medical, or health professional journals.
The Food and Drugs Act prohibits most direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications: all direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs was forbidden until 1978, when Health Canada began to allow ads containing names, quantities, and prices only, so that pharmacies could display their prices for comparison purposes. In 2000, Health Canada adopted an interpretation of this law allowing for the aforementioned "reminder" and "help-seeking" advertisements, although U.S.-style "full product ads" that mention the purpose of a prescription remain prohibited. Later that year, Health Canada ruled that a pairing of similarly-themed reminder and help-seeking commercials ran afoul of the regulations, as their combination constituted a full product ad.
U.S. media outlets such as magazines and television channels are often available in Canada: there is no regulation requiring direct-to-consumer ads illegal under Canadian law to be removed or substituted when U.S. signals and publications are distributed within Canada.
In 2014, York University professor and physician Dr. Joel Lexchin, and University of British Columbia associate professor Barbara Mintzes ,published a study that highlighted 10 DTC cases between 2000 and 2011 with "unsatisfactory" responses from Health Canada. They found that Health Canada's application of these regulations "[lacked] accountability and transparency"—with no public record of complaints and enforcement besides media coverage of certain prominent cases, and no evidence that Health Canada has ever issued fines for violations. In conclusion, they stated that "since DTCA became prominent in the U.S. in the mid-1990s, successive governments of different political stripes in Canada have shown a remarkably consistent commitment to non-enforcement".
In October 2002, the European Commission voted against a proposal to selectively allow advertising of "disease education information" in relation to AIDS, asthma, and diabetes. Despite insistence otherwise due to its selective and controlled nature, the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety assessed that the pharmaceutical industry could not be trusted to provide impartial and unbiased information. UK Labour Party MEP Catherine Stihler argued that the proposal was a "slippery slope" towards U.S.-style advertising practices promoting expensive "wonder drugs", and that "we don't want consumers sitting on their couches bombarded with a hard sell from big drug companies in the advertising break between Crossroads and Coronation Street."
Under the Undesirable Medical Advertisements Ordinance, advertising of medications is only legal for "minor" diseases, such as coughs and colds, headaches, indigestion, and others. Ads may not include depictions of treatment, medical professionals, or dramatizations of symptoms.
Under the Medicines Act of 1981, and regulated by the Therapeutic Products Advertising Code and a self-regulatory code by the industry group Medicines New Zealand, New Zealand is one of the only countries beside the United States to allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications. An ongoing review of the Act to develop a replacement, the Therapeutic Products Bill, has faced lobbying efforts for and against the continued legality of DTCA.
No advertising material directed towards the general public may make any references to prescription-only medications, under the assessment that only physicians and health care professionals should prescribe medications, and that they must not be presented as a consumer's choice. The home page of a drug manufacturer's website also constitutes advertising material. In a 2005 Health Select Committee hearing, GlaxoSmithKline UK general manager Eddie Gray stated that the company did not plan to lobby for DTC in the region, citing prevailing consumer attitudes against the concept.
Under the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), direct-to-consumer "product claim" advertisements for a prescription medication must include information on their major side effects and contraindications in the main body, with a "fair balance" in its coverage of benefits to risks. Unless they are given "adequate provision" via a variety of different outlets, ads must also include a "brief summary" of all risks associated with the medication. In print ads within magazines, this summary is typically given on a second page. Effective in July 2019, ads must also include pricing information if the prescription costs more than $35 for 30 days of treatment.
Print ads must contain a standard notice that instructs patients to report negative side effects to the FDA's MedWatch program. In ads carried on broadcast media, such as television commercials, only the major side effects are typically listed, and the ad contains blurbs directing viewers to where they can obtain more information (the aforementioned "brief summary"), such as on a website, phone hotline, or a current magazine issue. If the drug is subject to a boxed warning from the FDA (which indicates a serious risk), the warning must be reproduced in all advertising materials, and reminder ads for the drug are prohibited.
In 1962, the United States Congress gave the FDA the authority to regulate prescription drug labeling and advertising, but the FDA did not establish regulations until 1969. These required that ads for prescriptions include information on their major side effects and contraindications, and unless they have "adequate provision" via different outlets, a "brief summary" of all side effects and contraindications.
Pharmaceutical companies shifted the focus of their marketing efforts to licensed medical doctors in the 1970s, as the FDA mandated that only doctors could prescribe medicine. However, a larger movement towards autonomy in health care decisions prompted the first prominent examples of direct-to-consumer advertising. Merck published the first print DTC ad for a pneumonia vaccine (with a particular focus on those aged 65 years or older), and Boots Pharmaceuticals aired the first DTC commercial in 1983 for the prescription ibuprofen Rufen. The sole purpose of the Rufen ad was to promote it as being cheaper than the leading brand Motrin, and it contained no other claims related to the medication. The FDA briefly demanded that the Rufen ad be pulled, but it was restored after minor amendments.
As its guidelines were not written with mass media in mind, these early campaigns prompted concern from the FDA, especially after the arthritis drug Oraflex (whose release had been backed by a significant public PR campaign) was recalled after only five months on the market, following reports of adverse reactions and deaths. FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes showed reservations for the impact that DTCA would have on the industry and public health, and called for a moratorium in September 1983 pending further regulations. The moratorium was lifted in 1985. The industry felt that the requirement for a "brief summary" of all side effects was designed with print media in mind, and that their increasing length and technical language (often taking up an entire separate page of fine print when published in a magazine) made television advertising of prescriptions unfeasible. By the 1990's, there were calls for the FDA to loosen its regulations to make the concept viable.
A 1996 marketing campaign for the allergy medication Claritin found a loophole by intentionally excluding information about the medication itself from its advertising (which only included imagery, slogans such as "It's time for Claritin" and "Clear days and nights are here", and instructions to ask a doctor or call a phone number to request more information). In 1997, the FDA issued new guidelines that intended to make DTCM on radio and television less burdensome. In particular, the FDA clarified that informing the audience of where this information can also be obtained (such as a magazine ad, phone hotline, or website) constituted "adequate provision" of risk information (and thus relieved them from being included in the ad). The FDA also recognized reminder ads (such as the aforementioned Claritin ad) as not being subject to these rules, since they do not make any claims or statements regarding the indications and benefits of the medication.
The industry quickly took advantage of the new guidelines: by 1998, advertising spending on DTCA had reached $1.12 billion. Despite this growth, there were concerns that some ads had an insufficient focus on properly discussing the product, while concerns were also shown for the advertising of erectile dysfunction medications during programming that may be widely watched by children. In 2005, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) instituted new voluntary guidelines for DTCA, including requirements to voluntarily submit ads to the FDA for review and educate health professionals on new medications before an advertising campaign commences, use clear language in advertising, obtain appropriate age targeting for advertisements involving subject matter that may be inappropriate to certain audiences, and to not use "reminder" ads. By 2011, spending on pharmaceutical advertising had grown to approximately US$4.5 billion per year, and increased to $5.2 billion by 2016.
With the increasing spending, DTCA began to face opposition. In 2015, the American Medical Association's house of delegates voted in favor of a motion supporting the prohibition of DTCA, arguing that these marketing efforts contribute to the high cost of drugs, and "inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate". On March 4, 2016, Senator Al Franken introduced the Protecting Americans from Drug Marketing Act, which proposed the removal of tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies who engage in DTCA. Franken similarly showed concerns that the industry was spending too much on marketing. In a similar move, representative Rosa DeLauro called for a three-year moratorium on advertising of newly-approved prescription drugs.
On May 8, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) approved a rule requiring the display of list prices in commercials for any prescription that costs $35 or higher for 30 days of treatment, taking effect within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register. They must disclaim that those covered by health insurance may pay a different amount, and ads are allowed to include price comparisons against competitors. PhRMA had objected to the proposal, arguing that prominent display of list prices would cause confusion because they do not reflect what patients would typically pay under insurance coverage. When the rule was proposed in October 2018, PhRMA stated that its members would commit to publishing detailed pricing information online (including possible out-of-pocket costs, and information on financial support options), and directing viewers to this information within their advertising. However, HHS disputed their arguments, arguing that list prices would help patients calculate how much they would pay, especially if they have not yet met their insurance deductible, or the drug is not covered by their insurance. Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar compared the proposed requirement to similar regulations involving list prices for automobiles.
Supporters of direct-to-consumer advertising argue that advertisements increase competition which leads to lower prescription drug prices and new development, citing, for instance, that between 1997 and 2001, spending on research and development in the U.S. increased 59% while spending on promoting drugs directly to patients increased 145%. However, other experts have asserted that funding for R&D is determined by several other factors. Direct-to-consumer advertising, among other patient education initiatives, can educate consumers and patients about new treatments and therapeutic options that may not have been proactively mentioned by their healthcare professional. Proponents of DTCA claim this provides a vital opportunity for the public to be aware of what is available to them and to engage in an educated discussion with their doctor. A study observed that direct-to-consumer advertising promotes communication between patients and their doctors about medications. Thirty percent of Americans indicated they talk with their doctor about a medicine they saw on TV. In addition, surveys showed that increased advertising has had a positive impact on the degree to which people adhere to a given course of treatment – but only among those who were already on medication prior to exposure to direct-to-consumer advertising. Among this population, a 10% increase in exposure to drug advertising increases the rate of adherence between 1% and 2%.
Some studies have asserted that direct-to-consumer advertising misleads patients into demanding heavily-advertised drugs, leading to superfluous or sub-optimal treatment. Doctors may feel pressured to prescribe specific brand-name medications because they were mentioned by a patient. In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 47% of all antibiotics prescribed in the United States were unnecessary. Another study of young people living in West Palm Beach, Florida found that a 10% increase in advertising expose increased the total number of prescriptions by 5%; a higher percentage change than in Denver, Colorado – where DTCA expenditures per person are lower.
It has been argued that direct-to-consumer advertising can influence the doctor–patient relationship, including patients bringing up their need for an advertised, name-brand drug as their primary concern during a doctor visit, and becoming interested in newly-introduced medications that may not have underwent sufficient postmarketing surveillance. It has been demonstrated that direct-to-consumer ads have contributed to the frequency of requests made by patients towards their physicians to prescribe analgesic drugs, including opioids. A patient's request for a specific medication dramatically increases the rate at which physicians prescribe usually more expensive, branded drugs even when treatment for existing indications do not warrant such use. Pharmaceutical companies have also faced allegations of "disease mongering"—the process of promoting awareness of minor conditions such as balding and skin wrinkles in such a way that it encourages the sale of treatments for them.
Critics also argue that resources spent on advertising could otherwise be spent on research and development for new drugs and medical therapies. Danish physician Peter C. Gøtzsche indicated that pharmaceutical companies will advertise for their most profitable products, many of which are unnecessary "me-too" drugs. He maintains that "there is no need for marketing, as the products should speak for themselves."
Advertisements generally begin within a year of drugs entering the market, before postmarketing surveillance is available to see if adverse effects emerge, which increases the risk of harm. In the early 2000s, the FDA's resources to screen DTC ads were not keeping pace with the number of ads being produced, raising the risk that the inappropriate ads were not removed.
Vioxx was heavily marketed and was widely prescribed after its approval in 1999. When the drug was withdrawn for safety reasons in 2004, Merck, its developer, and the FDA were criticized for the campaign.
Xarelto was intensely advertised directly to consumers in 2017 and 2018 as a safe alternative to warfarin, with TV-marketing budgets exceeding 20 million USD per year. In August 2018, Johnson & Johnson's Xarelto TV ad came under attack by Twitter users, who criticized the abbreviated use of a disclaimer in a possibly misleading commercial featuring motorcyclists, informing the viewer that indeed the person in the TV ad "had to stop taking the medicine while riding a motorcycle". In March 2019, Johnson & Johnson and Bayer agreed to pay USD 775 million to settle thousands of lawsuits against the blockbuster blood thinner, without admitting liability in their settlement.
Some drug ads have "gendered" diseases in ways that do not reflect actual epidemiology. Women's bodies have also been objectified to mask or distract from unpleasant aspects of diseases. The marketing of drugs for inflammatory bowel disease have been called out on both counts. Similarly the marketing of Gardasil was primarily aimed at young women, when sexually transmitted diseases are carried by, and affect, both genders.
- Mogull SA, Balzhiser D (September 2015). "Pharmaceutical Companies Are Writing the Script for Health Consumerism". Commun. Des. Q. Rev. 3 (4): 35–49. doi:10.1145/2826972.2826976.
- "Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication in New Zealand". New Zealand Medical Journal. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
- Lazarus, David. "Direct-to-consumer drug ads: A bad idea that's about to get worse". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
- Mogull SA (2008). "Chronology of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising Regulation in the United States". AMWA Journal. 23: 3.
- Donohue J (2006). "A history of drug advertising: the evolving roles of consumers and consumer protection". The Milbank Quarterly. 84 (4): 659–99. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00464.x. PMC 2690298. PMID 17096638.
- "A Guide To Television Drug Advertising". American Council on Science and Health. May 30, 2018. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "Basics of Drug Ads". Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. FDA. February 8, 2019.
- Fayerman, Pamela. "Health Canada fails to properly regulate drug ads: 10-year study (updated)". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- Ono, Yumiko. "Advertising Fine Print in Drug Ads Sparks A Debate Among Marketers". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
- Russell, John. "Do drug ads help patients or lead to expensive treatments?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
- "Drug makers said to skirt Canadian restrictions on ads". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- Rosenthal, Elisabeth (February 27, 2016). "Ask Your Doctor if This Ad Is Right for You". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- Meiselman, Jessica. "The sneaky way pharmaceutical companies use celebs to market their drugs". The Outline. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
- "RESOLUÇÃO-RDC Nº 96, DE 17 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2008" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 17, 2016. Retrieved August 13, 2017.
- "Advertising Regulation for Medication in Brazil". The Brazil Business. Retrieved February 21, 2018.
- Mintzes, Barbara (February 2009). "Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?". Canadian Family Physician. 55 (2): 131–133. ISSN 0008-350X. PMC 2642505. PMID 19221067.
- "Prescription drug ad law notable for 'lack of teeth'". CBC News. December 10, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- Cozens, Claire (October 23, 2002). "Europe rejects drug advertising". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- Praet, Carolus; Cameron, Glen T.; Chien, Monica. "Pharmaceutical Advertising in Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, and the US: Current Conditions and Future Directions". Health Communication Research, 3(1), Pp. 1-63.
- "Kiwi doctors lobby for crackdown on drug ads". Stuff. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "Doctors in New Zealand—the only non-U.S. country that allows DTC advertising—call for bans". FiercePharma. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "A basic guide to prescription-only medicines". Advertising Standards Authority. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
- Schofield, Amy (July 10, 2017). "Pharma marketing: UK vs US". Pharmafield. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- "Drug companies say no to consumer advertising in UK". www.campaignlive.co.uk. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- Donohue, Julie (December 2006). "A History of Drug Advertising: The Evolving Roles of Consumers and Consumer Protection". The Milbank Quarterly. 84 (4): 659–699. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00464.x. ISSN 0887-378X. PMC 2690298. PMID 17096638.
- Karlin-Smith, Sarah. "Trump finalizes rule to require drug prices in TV ads". Politico. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
- Ventola CL (October 2011). "Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising: Therapeutic or Toxic?". P & T. 36 (10): 669–84. PMC 3278148. PMID 22346300.
- "The untold story of TV's first prescription drug ad". STAT. December 11, 2015. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "Ten Years Later: Direct to Consumer Drug Advertising". Ad Age. October 1, 2006. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "Drug Industry DTC Ad Guidelines Draw Criticism". Cardiology News. September 1, 2005. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
- "PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ISSUES DTC AD GUIDELINES". Ad Age. August 2, 2005. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
- "Direct-to-consumer advertising under fire". WHO. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "Drug ads: $5.2 billion annually -- and rising". CBS News. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- "American Medical Association urges ban on TV drug ads". Washington Post. November 15, 2015. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- says, Lori (March 4, 2016). "Lawmaker seeks to end tax breaks for consumer drug ads". STAT. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
- Karlin-Smith, Sarah. "Trump issues rule to require drug prices in TV ads, rejecting industry plan". Politico. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
- Pear, Robert (October 15, 2018). "Trump Rule Would Compel Drug Makers to Disclose Prices in TV Commercials". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
- Thrush, Glenn; Thomas, Katie (May 8, 2019). "Drug Prices Will Soon Appear in Many TV Ads". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
- Hollon MF (February 1, 2004). "Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs: a current perspective for neurologists and psychiatrists". CNS Drugs. 18 (2): 69–77. doi:10.2165/00023210-200418020-00001. PMID 14728054.
- Iizuka T, Jin GZ (September 1, 2005). "The Effect of Prescription Drug Advertising on Doctor Visits". Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 14 (3): 701–727. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.598.6929. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2005.00079.x. ISSN 1530-9134.
- McKinlay JB, Trachtenberg F, Marceau LD, Katz JN, Fischer MA (April 2014). "Effects of patient medication requests on physician prescribing behavior: results of a factorial experiment". Medical Care. 52 (4): 294–9. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000096. PMC 4151257. PMID 24848203.
- Metzl, Jonathan. “Selling Sanity Through Gender.” Ms Magazine, Fall, 2003.
- "CDC Press Releases". CDC. Retrieved August 12, 2017.
- "Cause and Effect: Do Prescription Drug Ads Really Work? - Knowledge@Wharton". Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
- Lyles A (May 1, 2002). "Direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers". Annual Review of Public Health. 23 (1): 73–91. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537. PMID 11910055.
- Anderson R (November 6, 2014). "Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits". BBC News. Retrieved August 12, 2017.
- Orelli B (June 9, 2017). "6 Reasons Why Prescription Drug Prices Are Extremely Expensive -- The Motley Fool". The Motley Fool. Retrieved August 12, 2017.
- Peter C. Gøtzsche (2013). Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. Taylor & Francis. p. 275. ISBN 9781846198847.
- Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB (August 2007). "A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs". The New England Journal of Medicine. 357 (7): 673–81. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa070502. PMID 17699817.
- Pharma watchers on Twitter chat up Johnson & Johnson Xarelto TV ad that seems 'misleading'. FiercePharma (Marketing). Retrieved 29 April 2019.
- Bayer, J&J to settle Xarelto claims for $775M. BioPharmaDive. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
- Fisher JA, Ronald LM (August 2010). "Sex, gender, and pharmaceutical politics: From drug development to marketing". Gender Medicine. 7 (4): 357–70. doi:10.1016/j.genm.2010.08.003. PMID 20869636.
- Frosch DL, Krueger PM, Hornik RC, Cronholm PF, Barg FK (2007). "Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising". Annals of Family Medicine. 5 (1): 6–13. doi:10.1370/afm.611. PMC 1783924. PMID 17261859.
- Kornfield R, Donohue J, Berndt ER, Alexander GC (2013). "Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers and providers, 2001-2010". PLOS ONE. 8 (3): e55504. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...855504K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055504. PMC 3587616. PMID 23469165.
- Educating the Consumer about Advertising: Some Issues – from the Education Resources Information Center Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Bloomington, Indiana.
- 40 years of DTC by Matthew Arnold/Medical Marketing and Media
- Catch the New Pharmaceutical Marketing Wave: Trends & Strategies for Reaching Today's Healthcare Consumer
- OPDP Complaints
- Prescription Drug Advertising