Ban direct to consumer advertising, report recommends

Abridged text of this article

PDF [abridged] of this article

Email this article to a friend

Respond to this article

PubMed citation

News roundup

Ban direct to consumer advertising, report recommends

Bob Burton Canberra

A report on direct to consumer advertising of prescription only medicines in New Zealand has recommended that the practice be banned.

The report, by senior academic staff at all four of New Zealand’s medical schools, concluded that such advertising, which is allowed in New Zealand, does not give "objective information on risks, benefits and options to assist patients to participate in healthcare decisions."

Professor Les Toop, from the University of Otago’s Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and his five colleagues recommended that "an independent health information service" be established to inform consumers on health and treatment options instead of direct to consumer advertising.

Unlike in the United States, the only other developed country that allows direct to consumer advertising, in New Zealand the health department does not routinely monitor advertising. Complaints about advertisements are dealt with under self regulatory codes run by either the advertising industry or the pharmaceutical industry.

An appendix to the report gives the results of a survey of all 3200 general practitioners in New Zealand. More than three quarters of the 1611 respondents agreed that patients often asked for advertised drugs that were not appropriate for them, while only 12% considered direct to consumer advertising to be useful in educating patients about the risks and benefits of prescription drugs.

Although the report has gained broad support, including from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, it has drawn some criticism. The Communication Agencies Association, which represents advertising agencies, dismissed the report as a "highly emotive attempt to stir unfounded concerns."

The Advertising Standards Authority, a non-governmental industry body, complained to the University of Otago ethics committee that the survey was misleading. After a preliminary review an investigator appointed by the university dismissed the complaint as "vexatious."

The Toop report’s conclusions are bolstered by documents from the government’s pharmaceutical management agency, Pharmac, obtained under the Official Information Act by the Green Party’s health spokeswoman, Sue Kedgley.

A November 2002 memo to the Pharmac board said that direct to consumer advertising created "fiscal risk on the limited government pharmaceutical budget as it drives up demand for subsidised pharmaceuticals, [and] shifts demand to high-cost medicines by encouraging patients to move from older less expensive medicines to newer high-cost medicines."

Pharmac reported that in 2001 $NZ4.9m (£1.7m; $2.7m; €2.5m) was spent on direct to consumer advertising for the top four drugs. Dispensing volumes of the four drugs—fluticasone (Flixotide), terbinafine (Lamisil), omeprazole (Losec), and eformoterol (Oxis)—increased by 42% that year.

According to the memo a survey in February 2000 by Medsafe—a division of the Department of Health—of regulatory compliance of direct to consumer drug advertising found that "only 1 of the 6 (16.6%) of the television advertisements was compliant with the [Medicines Act] regulations."

The Minister for Health, Annette King, remains non-committal on the report’s recommendations and has referred the report to departmental officials for advice.

Direct to Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs in New Zealand is available at www.chmeds.ac.nz

Abridged text of this article

PDF [abridged] of this article

Email this article to a friend

Respond to this article

PubMed citation