In England, you cannot advertise prescription-only medicine to the general public via TV or print advertising. Since the 1990’s, drug manufacturers can market their products direct to consumers in the U.S. Depending on your demographic, they may be all you see in commercials!
A recent article in the American Economic Journal: Microeconomics by Bradly Shapiro examined the pros and cons of these different levels of regulation. The main argument for the English position is that nothing should get in the way of the patient-doctor relationship and decision-making. Some argue that advertising (of any sort) tricks consumers into buying things they don’t really need. On the other hand, advertising may provide consumers with the information they did not previously have.
In his study, Shapiro examined antidepressants in adjacent counties. In some counties, viewers would receive adverts based on their TV “Designated Market Area” while adjacent counties would not. He found that advertising had positive effects on the number of prescriptions written. Moreover, most antidepressants are now generics so the cost increase is quite small. Additionally, people who were prescribed antidepressants missed fewer days at work. Overall, Shapiro’s estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in advertising of anti-depressants leads to a $32 million increase in new prescriptions which reduces workforce absenteeism worth about $770 million.
At least for anti-depressants, the American system is better than the UK system. The benefits outweigh the costs.
