Potions set to overdose viewers

By DITA DE BONI

Advertising that promotes prescription drugs may soon be as much a part of the television landscape as Dave from Wendy's or Vince from Beaurepaires.

Consumer-targeted advertising of pharmaceuticals seems destined to survive the considerable pressure being applied to have it banned.

This means viewers can expect to see even more dripping cheesy pizzas interspersed with drugs for heart disease, candy and chocolate scenes promoting Xenical and shots of partying young people being used to increase sales of herpes cream.

The bid by advertisers and pharmaceutical companies to retain control over their marketing has taken a leap forward recently.

At a forum in the Beehive last week on therapeutic advertising, groups traditionally opposed to direct consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals showed they were softening their stance.

The Consumers' Institute, the Medical Council and the Minister of Health gave tacit support to a tightening of regulations and leaving the self-regulatory environment largely intact.

Pharmac, the agency that manages the Government's pharmaceutical buying, opposes this approach.

The forum coincided with the release of a discussion document by the Ministry of Health. With consumer advertising loosely covered by the Medicines Act 1981 and the more recent Fair Trading Act, the Government wanted a review so it could decide whether more regulation was needed.

The discussion paper suggests four policy options.

The status quo, or the self-regulation of advertising by the industries involved. Previously, advertisers were not required to submit their advertising to the Advertising Standards Authority for vetting before it was published or broadcast.

Massey University associate professor of marketing Janet Hoek says there has been varying levels of acceptance of pre-vetting by advertisers, but "they generally welcomed the introduction of a mechanism which they hoped would raise standards and ... would ensure the right to promote therapeutic products directly to end-consumers was protected."

A complete ban on direct pharmaceutical advertising. This option would see $18 million lost to broadcasters, as well as the possibility that advertisers and pharmaceutical companies would argue that it contravened "freedom of expression" under the Bill of Rights.

Pharmac says such promotions ignore key treatment information and target the vulnerable by using emotional messages rather than rational information.

It says consumer advertising drives up the demand for subsidised materials and moves patients to higher-cost medicines.

It has suggested a ban on pharmaceuticals listed on the Pharmac schedule. That suggestion has drawn fire from organisations such as the Researched Medicines Industry, which says there is "no logical reason to make therapy available to patients and then not tell them it is available."

Retaining direct advertising under more stringent rules and regulations than those now in place, and continuing with industry management of the vetting process.

Anecdotal evidence from the conference suggests this option is the one most favoured by the ministry.

Crystal Beavis of the Researched Medicines Industry says self-regulation is consistent with Government policy and the results of the newly instituted pre-vetting system have yet to be appreciated.

"Strong penalties are already available. The withdrawal of advertising is in itself an extremely costly penalty [and] under the industry's own code of practice an additional penalty of up to $30,000 can be imposed," she says.

Adopting option three but replacing industry management of the process with management by a Government agency. The Government would need to allocate up to $2 million a year for its medicines watchdog Medsafe to run the scheme.

Robert Munro of the Communication Agencies Association says advertising firms believe that the Advertising Standards Authority is well-positioned to oversee the compliance systems and "we do not see a need for an alternative body to administer this area."

Interested parties have until February 14 to make submissions on the discussion document.

Some parties have told the Business Herald that they think the Government has already decided the limits of its policy.

They said the process of public meetings was a cynical exercise. In fact, accusations of cynicism are being made by those on both sides of the debate.

Consumers' Institute chief executive David Russell said the institute had moderated its stance since the first television drug ads were produced in 1996.

His "betes noires," the original Xenical ads, were "woefully inadequate" in terms of conveying information to consumers and were made "cynically to comply with the letter of the law."

Advertisements were now more tightly vetted, but are "still a mixed bag," he said.

"The best example on screens right now is the ad for Zocor [a cholesterol drug]. They [Merck Sharp & Dohme and Insight] did a good job of testing the ad before broadcasting it."

Mr Russell said the industry had made sufficient steps to stave off the possibility of a ban on advertising, and the remaining argument had become a "scrap on principle."

He said consumers ultimately did not need drug advertising.

He believed, as Health Minister Annette King said in her speech to the Beehive forum, that advertising exists to increase sales of drugs, "more than the high-minded reasons we're given about it."

"Ultimately it's about sales. And ultimately a TV ad can only get so much across in 30 seconds.

"The ads create very strong initial impressions. They are very effective, but there is definitely a need for more hard information to be provided despite the fact things have improved.

"We are most interested in the content, in the truth of that content, and the truth of the impression it leaves. It must be accurate and show everything about a [drug] the consumer needs to know."