Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News    H1'ed 3/16/14

Do You Like Direct to Consumer Drug Ads? Get Ready for Direct to Consumer Radiation Ads

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   7 comments
Author 1353
Message Martha Rosenberg
Become a Fan
  (84 fans)
- Advertisement -

Seventeen years after direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising was instituted in the US,  70 percent of adults  and  25 percent  of children are on at least one prescription drug. Topping the adult pill category for central nervous system drugs is--surprise!--antidepressants which are used by an astounding one in four women between 50 and 64. Topping the pill category for children 12 to 17 is--another surprise!--ADHD meds, though kids increasingly take blood pressure, diabetes and  insomnia meds  too. (Babies are actually given  GERD medicine  for spitting up.) Twenty percent of the population is now on five or more prescription medications. Ka-ching.



(Image by Martha Rosenberg)   Details   DMCA

- Advertisement -

DTC advertising has done two pernicious things. It has created a nation of hypochondriacs with depression, bipolar disorder, GERD, Restless Legs, insomnia, seasonal allergies and assorted pain, mood and "risk" conditions and it has reduced doctors to order takers and gate keepers. Thanks to TV drug ads, patients tell doctors what is wrong with them and what pill they need, coupon in hand. Drug company-funded web sites even give patients talking points to use when they see the doctor, lest they don't ring up a sale.

Selling prescription drugs like soap makes a mockery of a medical school education. It has created the need to train doctors in  "refusal"  skills said Richard Pinckney, MD, Professor at the University of Vermont College of Medicine at a 2010 Chicago conference attended by medical boards, accrediting agencies and representatives from the AMA, FDA, VA and 23 medical centers. Now the same technique is at play with radiation therapy.

For at least two years, direct-to-consumer radiation ads have aggressively promoted "proton therapy" to patients, an expensive new kind of radiation treatment for people with prostate and other cancer that is said to limit radiation exposure to surrounding organs. While proton therapy sounds like a "scientific marvel," writes biotech reporter  Luke Timmerman , the evidence of its value is limited so far to brain tumors called medulloblastomas and not other cancers for which it is marketed. There is also a "real problem" with the business model, writes Timmerman. Because a proton center costs $152 million to build and operate, it "creates an incentive for doctors within a network to steer their patients to proton therapy," including cancer patients who may not be appropriate and who may "benefit just as much from an existing, lower-cost alternative."

- Advertisement -

How much more expensive is proton therapy? The average Medicare reimbursement for proton treatment for prostate cancer is about  $32,428  versus $18,575 for standard radiation.  Other estimates  place proton therapy at $50,000 for prostate cancer, twice as much as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) which is also employed to limit radiation exposure to surrounding organs.

Is it proton therapy better? Not according to  comparative effectiveness studies  in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Patients on the cheaper IMRT therapy had a 34 percent lower risk of gastrointestinal side effects compared to proton therapy. (IMRT was also associated with  22 percent  fewer hip fractures and a 19 percent reduced need for further cancer treatment than traditional radiation though there was a greater risk of erectile dysfunction.)

Will "Ask Your Doctor" radiation ads sell proton therapy the way they have Lipitor, Nexium, Claritin and Prozac? If patients can be experts on diseases and medication, why can't they be experts on oncology? Or will the medical establishment realize if proton therapy were really  superior, ads and patients would not be required to sell it--and pay for the machine.


 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 2   Supported 2   Must Read 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Martha Rosenberg Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Martha Rosenberg is an award-winning investigative public health reporter who covers the food, drug and gun industries. Her first book, Born With A Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health, is distributed by Random (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Grassley Investigates Lilly/WebMD link Reported by Washington Post

The Drug Store in Your Tap Water

It's the Cymbalta Stupid

Are You Sure You're Not Psychotic Asks Shameless Drug Company?

Another Poorly Regulated "Derivative"--the Antidepressant Pristiq

MRSA and More. Antibiotics Linked to Obesity and Allergies, Too