How is drug advertising effective?

www.dreamstime.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in a predictable way”. 
My research question to help me study the economic principle is “although drug advertising is viewed more negative? What are the benefits of it and how does it positively affect consumers?” The article published in Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania titled “Sick of Drug Ads? Here’s why they might be good for you” demonstrates this economic principle because it argues whether drug advertising are informing patients about treatments for their condition or is it just getting you to buy one firm over the other? 

 First, A research study was done by Wharton Michael Sinkinson, a business professor in economics and Amanda Starc, a professor of health care management to really determine whether drug advertising are informational to consumers or harmful. In their research, these professors looking into a category of drugs called statin. Statin is one of the most common drugs that companies advertise. In their study they showed ads to some people, but not to others. These professors use a natural experiment these professors dive into how the political process in the U.S. has messed up advertising markets. For example, in Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, thousands of political ads and displacing drug ads. People don’t see those drug ads within that month. They found that patented advertised drugs are stealing money from consumers so called “stealing”. These companies are trying to convince firms to buy their drug over other firms. The second thing that they found is that off-patented drugs, that are not advertised are sold at much lower prices. To conclude this findings, patients that talk to their doctor about their condition, they walk off with a lower-priced drug that is off-patented.

 Second, These professors found that the positive effect of drug advertising is patients are talking more to their doctors about advertised drugs. These professors, questions these regulators and states what if these ads were to stop? What would happen? For example, if companies were to stop these statin ads. Fewer people would talk to their doctors about their cholesterol and fewer people would be taking this drug. I think that drug advertising should be stopped because it doesn’t accurately inform consumers and misleads them. I don’t think that consumers are talking to their doctors more. Consumers are not educated by their physicians, but are rather informed by “marketers” and ads who are not looking out for consumers best interest, but only care about making profit.

 To conclude there is a positive side to advertising. Regulators are concerned that business-stealing ads, drug advertising could result in higher drug prices and over-medicated patients. Those are not a good outcome. However, there is a nice spillover effect, less expensive, non-advertised drugs is a positive side to advertising. Also, patients are also talking to there doctors more regarding health concerns. Yet if the positive spillover cost should continue, and that is going to go away once there are no more patented drugs. So statin for example if that goes off-patented, there will be no more statin ads on tv and fewer people will be talking to their doctors about cholesterol and fewer people taking these drugs.

 In my next blog post I will research: How does healthcare advertising primarily affect physicians? Do they think it should be stopped or continued?