Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Is direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising a gold mine or mine field for pharmaceutical manufacturers? It seems to be a little of both.

Consumerism has proliferated in recent decades, as the public has sought more information about health care, medications, and medical issues in general. The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that at least 8.5 million Americans each year request and receive prescriptions for specific drugs after seeing or hearing advertisements for these products.¹ Proponents of DTC advertising argue that it gives consumers the information they need to discuss treatment options with their physicians and can play an important role in improving health care. Opponents are concerned that these ads are misleading, that they fail to communicate risks, that they lead to drug overuse, and that their costs elevate drug prices — thereby adding to the costs of prescription drugs and fueling the rising cost of health care.¹

In 1999, the first lawsuit was brought against a pharmaceutical company in connection with DTC advertising. Other cases have followed, with a significant impact on pharmaceutical product liability law. Civil liability has emerged from DTC advertisements of prescription drugs in print, broadcast, promotional, and cyberspace materials. Proposed legislative or regulatory limitations on DTC advertising have raised both First Amendment and public policy issues.

Keywords

direct-to-consumer advertising FDA regulation legal issues

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Prescription Drugs: FDA oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising has its limitations. GAO Report No. 03-177; October 2002. Available at: www.fda.gov. Accessed October 5, 2004.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Public Meeting; September 23, 2003. Available at: www.fda.gov. Accessed October 5, 2004.

US Food and Drug Administration, Aikin KJ, Swasy JL. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: Selected patient and physician survey findings empowering patients. September 12, 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov. Accessed October 5, 2004.

FDA Statement of Policy: Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: Moratorium. September 2, 1983.

50 Fed. Reg. 36,677. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: Withdrawal of moratorium. 1985.

Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Consumer-directed broadcast advertisements. August 12, 1997. Available at www.fda.gov. Accessed October 5, 2004.

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21USC §352n and 21USC §331.

21 CFR §202.1e(1) (1989).

21 USC §321k (1987).

10.

64 Fed. Reg. 43,197. August 9, 1999.

11.

Food and Drug Administration. FDA talk paper, T99-36, FDA issues final guidance for direct to consumer Rx drug advertisements. August 6, 1999. Available at: www.fda.gov. Accessed October 5, 2004.

12.

US General Accounting Office. Prescription drugs: FDA's oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising has its limitations. GAO Report No. GAO-03-177. October 2002. Available at: www.gao.gov/news.items/d03177.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2004.

13.

Walker

Patient-based strategies encourage increased use of generic drugs.

P&T Formulary Rev. 2003; 38: 603.

14.

FDA officials describe agency actions on problematic drug promotion activity.

BNA Pharm Law Industry Rep. 2003; 1(1542): 4555.

15.

Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A comment k, (1965).

16.

Mazur v. Merck & Co., 964 F2d 1348 (3d Cir 1992).

17.

Niemiera v. Schneider, 114 550, 559, 1112, 1116 NJ (1989).

18.

Edwards v. Basal Pharm., 933 P2d 298 OK (1997).

19.

Riff v. Morgan Pharmacy, 508 A2d 1247, 1251 PA Sup Ct (1986), appeal denied, 524 A2d 494 PA (1987).

20.

21 CFR §310-515 (1994).

21.

In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 955 F Supp 700, 709 (ED TX 1997), aff'd 165 F3d 374 (5th Cir 1999).

22.

Presto v. Sandoz, 487 SE2d 70, 226 GA App. 547 (GA App Ct 1997), cert denied, GA Sup Ct (1998).

23.

Perez v. Wyeth Labs, 161 NJ 1, 734 A2d 1245 NJ (1999).

24.

Hotchkiss

New Jersey Supreme Court creates direct-to-consumer exception to learned intermediary doctrine. August 16, 1998. Available at: http://www.pbnlaw.com/PressRoom/direct2consumer.shtml. Accessed on October 14, 2004.

25.

Anderson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., W.D. Wash., No. CV 03-2886-L. September 22, 2003.

26.

Rubin

Prescription drugs and the cost of advertising them. Available at: http://www.therubins.com/geninfo/advertise.htm. Accessed October 5, 2004.

27.

Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Public Meeting. Comments of Dr. Alan Goldhammer, representing the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. September 23, 2003.

28.

Herbal fen-phen warning.

FDA Consumer. 1998; January 11: 2.

29.

CompuServe v. Patterson, 89 F3d 1257 (6th Cir 1996).

30.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 112 Stat. 2860.

31.

Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, §312.7.

32.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. vs. Public Service Commission. 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

33.

Introduced 107th Cong. by Pete Stark (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

34.

An Act Relating to Income Tax. Kentucky Resolution B.R. 433.

35.

Say No to Drug Ads Act. H. R. 144, 108th Congress, introduced by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

36.

Bolger vs. Youngs Drug Products. 463 U.S. 60, at 73.

37.

Rein

, Kamp

, Harold

Proposed Limits on Prescription Drug Ads: A Constitutional Analysis. WLF Working Paper 110. Washington DC: Washington Legal Foundation; July 2002.

38.

DiMasi

J.A.

, Hansen

R.W.

, Grabowski

H.G.

The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs.

J Health Econ. 2003; 22(2): 151–85.

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References