Young Adults Like Their Meds, But Not Pharma

There's no mixed message here, Ed, because you forgot to factor in one important issue--the majority of young people are stupid.

I can say that with confidence, as it wasn't many years ago that I left that age group. I still interact with many people that age.

Stupid. Of course, older generations have their fair share of morons, as well.

But, again--stupid ;)

"Large majorities say ads should should tell how to obtain more info, provide more info about side effects "

I wish I still had the reference but there was a study done a few years ago in which patients indicated that they tune out info about side effects. I doubt to many people would go to some other place to get that info until there's some bad publicity about a drug and they want to know if they can sue.

We Americans are an odd bunch. We want everything to be easily cured with a pill and we want access to that pill on our own terms. It's the health care version of the sound bite.

I'm not a big fan of DTC advertising but only 22% said drug companies shouldn't advertise (compared to 40% who disagreed with the statement drug companies should not advertise).

Also, if people are more confident taking a med they heard of before (54 vs. 13%), shouldn't drug companies advertise.

Oh the trouble with surveys and focus groups.

Lenny: I loved every part, but hated it. Carl: I feel exactly the same, but the opposite.

There have been a number of such polls over the years (although I don't recall another with young people specifically the focus). For the last ten years or so, they've all come out about the same - pharma gets increasingly negative ratings overall (with a slight uptick in a few polls since 2005), but the meds themselves do not.

Really, this makes sense. There is, indeed, a distinction between manufacturer overall behavior and thing made. (As in "a least Mussolini made trains run on time." Good commute; bad fascist. Not equating - just an metaphor for distinguishing dimensions.)

Also, most people want/need to think that the meds they or people close to them are using are OK. Otherwise....(etc.)

At the same time, one of my own docs recalled a recent survey - he didn't recall where - that suggested general decline in rx's written. Anecdotally, most docs I know talk about pts asking more questions about drug safety and being more resistant to an rx. Do we have data on that?

Justice, that's an interesting analogy. Problem is, people don't understand the difference in the situations. Here's why:

Fascism=bad, trains running on time=good. But you don't need fascism to make the trains run on time. Or, in other words, there are ways to trains running on time other than fascism. Additionally, is it worth having fascism to get the trains running on time? I say no (and, eventually, the Italian people of the mid-1940's agreed).

The problem is that some, especially young people, have equated drug companies making a profit=bad, but drugs=good. What they fail to grasp is that you cannot have your "good" drugs without the "bad" drug company profits. And I don't think many would rather have no drugs at all just to ensure the drug companies get no profit.

Instead they whine and complain about the evil drug companies making their profits, but they want their drugs.

Now, we can discuss the recent (last 10 years or so) change in public opinion on drug companies, why it has changed (increased profits? DTC? Vioxx et al?). But the fact is, to get your life-saving and improving meds, you need profit motive. And the respondents, especially the ones that whined "the drug companies care more about profits than saving lives" just don't get it.

James - I haven't read the full article or survey, so assume this is written without having done some of the homework.

In the past, at least, the phrase about "caring more about profits than saving lives" was put there by the pollsters, not the respondents. So whether it accurately represents the latters' views, in any significant way, is hard to know.

Besides what changed in '96, there is the bottomless discussion of profits, their size, their use, how much correlated with R&D, etc. etc. But let's not go there.

I would suggest the following based on my reading of surveys. It is true that the industry has been demonized, just as lawyers have. The Constant Gardner vs. the King of Torts, as I teach it, with both images being about as representative of their respective callings as the other.

But my impression is that the most negative views of the industry are not about profits in any abstract sense. They are about the high and medium profile instances that make headlines - e.g., Zyprexa or Embrel marketing strategies, obviously Vioxx, suppressed studies, etc.. What the average person doesn't know - and I myself don't know - is what is genuinely "normative" in the industry.

I will frankly say that, as a relative newbie to the topic (about six years), I hear a lot of "war stories" - from people in industry, academic researchers, etc.. I have been amazed at how bad it _can_ get.

As I've also said before, I don't think the integrity of people in the industry as a whole is different from other callings, and probably higher than academia, where I work. But, because lives are indeed at stake, a few really scuzzy practices can have enormous consequences for a lot of people. (Conversely, nobody cares if a social scientist "messes up.")

So, while I realize many will disagree, I do think pharma is obliged to a higher standard than most industries (more like a profession). I do not think FDA regulation "solves the problem," and I think there is a real act to really clean up, even if not as monolithic as often presented.

Young people dont trust pharma, because the younger generation has grown up with the internet, and with the internet revolution has come exposure of the truth about the pharmaceutical industry and the true side effects of prescription meds...

Most of the top pharma execs are old and have not yet realized the power of the internet ..

In spite of not liking "DTC" ads, the survey clearly indicates that DTC ads work exactly as they are intended:

54% are more confident in a medication when they have heard of it beforehand (from thier mother? No! From DTC ads!)

A plurality (37% to 22%) think that ads help them better understand health issues

Here's what's funny to me: 70% think that ads should tell how to obtain more information (most ads already do that) 62% think that ads should provide more info about side effects (they are mandated by law to do so, and most ads already spend ~50% of air time on side effect issues! Should we start airing ads that list ONLY the side effects and nothing about the indication for which the medication was approved?)

I agree with James -- the vast majority of people in the US have absolutely no idea how drugs are made. They think that it is actually possible to separate the profit motive from drug development. I think that the pharmaceutical industry should collectively start "educational" ads that inform people of who designs drugs (companies, not the government), what the failure rates are (massive), and what kind of time-frame it takes to design/make drugs (10+ years). Most people have no idea of the difficulties in this industry.

If any of the young adults in the survey discovered a new drug in their kitchem sink .. They would rightly want to claim their millions or at least be on TV. I'm working on a pill to treat stupidity..I'm sure there will be a large group of the treatment resistant and in some it will induce cynicism..

Funny, I was under the impression Brian youu were already taking such a drug!