Frist vs. Drug Ads
By Montag | Related entries in General PoliticsLindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise posts about Bill Frist’s call to end direct to consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements, and the political implications of his doing so. Beyerstein concludes that “Frist’s defection may say more about the political fortunes of movement conservatism than about Frist’s own prospects.”
The Boston Globe: With advertising under siege, drug makers rethink their marketing message
For the record, I agree with Frist’s view (see the Boston Globe article) that “such advertising …drives a wedge between doctors and patients and increases prescription drug costs.” But, is this just political maneuvering? Or might something meaningful come about from Frist’s stance? Even if it doesn’t actually lower drug prices, would removing the “wedge” be better for patients health?
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 4th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
i call bulls**t. frist is only doing this to promote himself as the next president. He wasn’t pro-stem cell or ant-drug advertisement before…strange he is doing it now.
August 5th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
“drives a wedge between doctors and patients”
I think you misspelled “threatens to give patients enough information to behave like clients hiring an expert for his services”.
Advertising for prescription drugs is only one vehicle of such information, of course, and a very limited one. But this “driving a wedge” phrasing seems to me to imply that the relationship of patient to doctor should be a helpless and uninformed one. Otherwise, why would providing information to the patient damage the relationship? (What next - moves to outlaw websites with unapproved levels of medical information?) Bah.