How does a Scotsman get his healthcare information? With difficulty.
Here's a new article from today's edition of The Scotsman:
Advertising rules stifle free market for prescriptions
By Peter Pitts
IN EUROPE, it is illegal for drug companies to advertise prescription-only drugs to consumers. But the European Commission (EC) recently announced that it will allow pharmaceutical firms to disseminate "information" on their products over the airwaves, on the internet, and in print.
I think this change can't come soon enough. For too long, European bureaucrats have put cost considerations before patient care, keeping patients in the dark about alternatives that may best address their needs. Officials have, I think, paid lip service to the idea of empowering patients with more information on treatment options.
James Copping, a principal administrator of the EC, said in 2006: "We want a system where patients can be empowered to take an equal part in healthcare decisions." But thus far, no such thing has happened.
Consider the European agencies tasked with weighing the effectiveness of various treatments, such as the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) or Germany's IQWiG. These agencies exist to provide unbiased medical information to government.
But because they are operated by government, I would say they have a vested interest in keeping costs down and have an incentive to conclude that newer, more expensive medicines are no more effective than older, cheaper ones.
Nice offers an instructive example. In 2001, contrary to expert findings by licensing authorities in 65 countries – including Scotland – it cited "insufficient evidence" for recommending the use of Gleevec in leukaemia patients.
In 2002, US authorities approved Gleevec for the treatment of stomach cancer and it was deemed a miracle drug. It wasn't until 21 months later that Nice authorised the use of Gleevec for English victims of the disease.
IQWiG seems similarly set on depriving German patients of vital treatments. The agency has promoted an "efficiency frontier" as its governing methodology for evaluating treatments. But such jargon is smoke and mirrors, designed to cover for the government's preference for established – and generally less expensive – treatments, and by decreeing the most cost-effective option in a treatment category, these agencies effectively determine what a doctor must prescribe, irrespective of a patient's individual characteristics.
Obviously, pharmaceutical companies have products to sell. But, by allowing them to provide Europeans with medical information, they could serve as a counterbalance to the heavy-handed pronunciations of state-run comparative-effectiveness agencies.
Indeed, a great deal of evidence demonstrates that consumers benefit when drug manufacturers participate in healthcare decision-making.
In the US, for example, a 2002 study by the Food and Drug Administration found that direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals improved both patient-doctor discussions and compliance with physician recommendations. The study also found that 88 per cent of patients who asked about a specific drug were afflicted with the condition in question.
A 2003 study in US health policy journal Health Affairs arrived at a similar conclusion. According to the study, ad- inspired doctor visits resulted in the advertised medicine being prescribed in only about 47 per cent of cases. Put another way, patients didn't get a prescription for the medicine they came in to discuss on more than half their visits. Even with advertising, doctors exert appropriate judgment when they prescribe drugs.
On other occasions, according to the study, previously undiagnosed medical conditions get treated – a good thing.
For European bureaucrats, there is reason for concern. If consumers can get additional information on drug options thanks to direct-to-consumer efforts, there's a good chance they'll start to ask the state-run health systems why they can't access certain treatments.
As European Parliament member Jorgo Chatzimarkakis recently argued: "Citizens cannot be deprived of information by their own governments on such crucial issues as one's health."
Government-run systems have demonstrated that they're not interested in spending more money, but armed with new information, consumers may be able to make the case to their leaders that the status quo of rationed, controlled care will no longer suffice.
Here's a new article from today's edition of The Scotsman:
Advertising rules stifle free market for prescriptions
By Peter Pitts
IN EUROPE, it is illegal for drug companies to advertise prescription-only drugs to consumers. But the European Commission (EC) recently announced that it will allow pharmaceutical firms to disseminate "information" on their products over the airwaves, on the internet, and in print.
I think this change can't come soon enough. For too long, European bureaucrats have put cost considerations before patient care, keeping patients in the dark about alternatives that may best address their needs. Officials have, I think, paid lip service to the idea of empowering patients with more information on treatment options.
James Copping, a principal administrator of the EC, said in 2006: "We want a system where patients can be empowered to take an equal part in healthcare decisions." But thus far, no such thing has happened.
Consider the European agencies tasked with weighing the effectiveness of various treatments, such as the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) or Germany's IQWiG. These agencies exist to provide unbiased medical information to government.
But because they are operated by government, I would say they have a vested interest in keeping costs down and have an incentive to conclude that newer, more expensive medicines are no more effective than older, cheaper ones.
Nice offers an instructive example. In 2001, contrary to expert findings by licensing authorities in 65 countries – including Scotland – it cited "insufficient evidence" for recommending the use of Gleevec in leukaemia patients.
In 2002, US authorities approved Gleevec for the treatment of stomach cancer and it was deemed a miracle drug. It wasn't until 21 months later that Nice authorised the use of Gleevec for English victims of the disease.
IQWiG seems similarly set on depriving German patients of vital treatments. The agency has promoted an "efficiency frontier" as its governing methodology for evaluating treatments. But such jargon is smoke and mirrors, designed to cover for the government's preference for established – and generally less expensive – treatments, and by decreeing the most cost-effective option in a treatment category, these agencies effectively determine what a doctor must prescribe, irrespective of a patient's individual characteristics.
Obviously, pharmaceutical companies have products to sell. But, by allowing them to provide Europeans with medical information, they could serve as a counterbalance to the heavy-handed pronunciations of state-run comparative-effectiveness agencies.
Indeed, a great deal of evidence demonstrates that consumers benefit when drug manufacturers participate in healthcare decision-making.
In the US, for example, a 2002 study by the Food and Drug Administration found that direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals improved both patient-doctor discussions and compliance with physician recommendations. The study also found that 88 per cent of patients who asked about a specific drug were afflicted with the condition in question.
A 2003 study in US health policy journal Health Affairs arrived at a similar conclusion. According to the study, ad- inspired doctor visits resulted in the advertised medicine being prescribed in only about 47 per cent of cases. Put another way, patients didn't get a prescription for the medicine they came in to discuss on more than half their visits. Even with advertising, doctors exert appropriate judgment when they prescribe drugs.
On other occasions, according to the study, previously undiagnosed medical conditions get treated – a good thing.
For European bureaucrats, there is reason for concern. If consumers can get additional information on drug options thanks to direct-to-consumer efforts, there's a good chance they'll start to ask the state-run health systems why they can't access certain treatments.
As European Parliament member Jorgo Chatzimarkakis recently argued: "Citizens cannot be deprived of information by their own governments on such crucial issues as one's health."
Government-run systems have demonstrated that they're not interested in spending more money, but armed with new information, consumers may be able to make the case to their leaders that the status quo of rationed, controlled care will no longer suffice.
