New Proposal Would Require TV Ads for Drugs to Include Prices

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,000
31,195
1,743
oklahoma city
#21
You mentioned the energy industry. Do you have an example of where the federal government gave Exxon Mobil a check to fund, let's say, a new chemical processing plant?
How about you give me an example of the government giving a health care corporation a check to fund, say, a new MRI machine?
Or, said, hey, HCA we have all this federal land available, why don't you stick a new hospital on our land and we will lease it to you for peanuts or even free.
Obviously, different industries are on different government teets based on the needs of the industry. But, if you think, as your post stated, that health care is the only one, you are just plain wrong.

You are applying your logic to try to make a false point. No, the federal government doesn't write checks to the largest company in the oil industry to build capital assets. But, let me ask you, does Exxon Mobil pay market value royalties on plots owned by the federal government or are those often reduced?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,371
48,101
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#22
What industry are you talking about that don't get tax dollars?
Education, energy, aviation, transportation, communications, and on and on get funding from tax payers.

Fine, I'll agree with your point. Any industry that gets absolutely nothing from the government can wine and dine to their hearts content.
No they don't. The government doesn't write checks to those industries. You can't seem to comprehend that the tax code only allows industries to keep the money they've already earned. It doesn't give money back.

BTW, education is not an industry.
It isn't? I work in it. We have customers. We have a work product.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
6,466
5,128
1,743
Edmond
#23
How about you give me an example of the government giving a health care corporation a check to fund, say, a new MRI machine?
Or, said, hey, HCA we have all this federal land available, why don't you stick a new hospital on our land and we will lease it to you for peanuts or even free.
Obviously, different industries are on different government teets based on the needs of the industry. But, if you think, as your post stated, that health care is the only one, you are just plain wrong.

You are applying your logic to try to make a false point. No, the federal government doesn't write checks to the largest company in the oil industry to build capital assets. But, let me ask you, does Exxon Mobil pay market value royalties on plots owned by the federal government or are those often reduced?
Oil is the most subsidized industry. You can throw military/CIA intervention in there as well.
 
Jul 20, 2018
699
98
28
58
77539
#24
How about you give me an example of the government giving a health care corporation a check to fund, say, a new MRI machine?
Or, said, hey, HCA we have all this federal land available, why don't you stick a new hospital on our land and we will lease it to you for peanuts or even free.
Obviously, different industries are on different government teets based on the needs of the industry. But, if you think, as your post stated, that health care is the only one, you are just plain wrong.

You are applying your logic to try to make a false point. No, the federal government doesn't write checks to the largest company in the oil industry to build capital assets. But, let me ask you, does Exxon Mobil pay market value royalties on plots owned by the federal government or are those often reduced?
In all of your examples, the federal government is just "giving" something back that, if not taken in the first place, they couldn't "give" back. If my wife gives me money from her paycheck to go by a new gun, did I pay for it or did she?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,000
31,195
1,743
oklahoma city
#27
In all of your examples, the federal government is just "giving" something back that, if not taken in the first place, they couldn't "give" back. If my wife gives me money from her paycheck to go by a new gun, did I pay for it or did she?
Ok, same for heatlhcare. If the government pays for insurance and I use that to go buy some healthcare, did I pay for it or did they?

If the government has land, and allows Exxon to pay less-than-market royalties on the products extracted from that land, exactly what did the government take from Exxon and give them back?
 
Last edited:
Feb 11, 2007
4,002
1,859
1,743
Oklahoma City
#28
New Proposal Would Require TV Ads for Drugs to Include Prices
By the Editors

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed requiring that direct-to-consumer television ads for prescription drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid include the list price of the drugs.

The goal is to increase price transparency on drug and biological products and encourage competition, which could theoretically keep prices lower.

The following statement would appear at the end of the ad: "The list price for a [30-day supply of] [typical course of treatment with] [name of prescription drug or biological product] is [insert list price]. If you have health insurance that covers drugs, your cost may be different."

Drugs that cost less than $35 for a month's supply or for a usual treatment course would be exempt from the requirement.

The proposed rule could be adopted after a 60-day public comment period. On Monday, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said that its members (e.g., Merck, Pfizer) will begin voluntarily including information in their DTC TV ads directing patients to sources for the pricing information, such as a website, but they will not include the list prices in the ads.
I don't understand why drug companies are allowed to advertise drugs to directly to the public. First the public has a very limited understanding of these medications. These advertisements commonly show a young healthy looking couple dancing around enjoying the benefit of the drug and then by law in fine black print say the this drug many injure or even lead to death. Finally they encourage the watcher to see their doctor to see
if the "drug is right for you" . Its crazy!
 
Jul 20, 2018
699
98
28
58
77539
#29
Ok, same for heatlhcare. If the government pays for insurance and I use that to go buy some healthcare, did I pay for it or did they?

If the government has land, and allows Exxon to pay less-than-market royalties on the products extracted from that land, exactly what did the government take from Exxon and give them back?
Again, the federal government can't pull money out of thin air. The money they gave the insurance company came from a taxpayer.

The federal government took the land. Duh. The federal government can't constitutionally own land unless it's used for a military base.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,527
8,365
1,743
Earth
#30
I don't understand why drug companies are allowed to advertise drugs to directly to the public. First the public has a very limited understanding of these medications. These advertisements commonly show a young healthy looking couple dancing around enjoying the benefit of the drug and then by law in fine black print say the this drug many injure or even lead to death. Finally they encourage the watcher to see their doctor to see
if the "drug is right for you" . Its crazy!
I agree, what I don't understand is how there is possibly ANY cost benefit for them to do that. Honestly I'm getting to where I switch the channel when they come on. I sometimes wonder if the drug companies are funding the media outlets in exchange for protection and that's why they continue these adds...maybe an I'll scratch your back you scratch mine deal? Who knows...Can Steross or Rx explain to us why these things are so prevalent in our market...it's disgusting and crazy for the drug companies to go directly to the public with these adds, IMHO.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,000
31,195
1,743
oklahoma city
#31
Again, the federal government can't pull money out of thin air. The money they gave the insurance company came from a taxpayer.

The federal government took the land. Duh. The federal government can't constitutionally own land unless it's used for a military base.
If you can show me that all of the land that the federal government has they took from Exxon, then you have a point. Otherwise, you are just talking more nonsense.

Do you really believe the things that you say?
Exactly.
 

Rixaroo

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Jun 16, 2011
947
1,254
643
OKC
www.weekendwatchguide.com
#36
You obviously have infinite more knowledge on this issue than I, but I guess I don't understand. For example, it's hard for me to fathom that when those restless leg syndrome commercials aired, the manufactured would have sold the same amount of drugs by not advertising at all.

Additionally, being in my late 30s I know lots of guys my age that have gotten into the Testosterone therapy because of the radio ads.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,371
48,101
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#37
You obviously have infinite more knowledge on this issue than I, but I guess I don't understand. For example, it's hard for me to fathom that when those restless leg syndrome commercials aired, the manufactured would have sold the same amount of drugs by not advertising at all.

Additionally, being in my late 30s I know lots of guys my age that have gotten into the Testosterone therapy because of the radio ads.
That's exactly the case. There hasn't been a single study that I'm aware of that has ever shown that DTC-Rx advertising has had an effect on market share. As I've said, everyone does it because everyone does it and the only thing we know for sure is that it increases costs.

The radio ads you're talking about aren't the same thing. They're not selling a drug, they're selling a service. "Come get your Low-T tested and we'll make your pecker work, guaranteed or your money back!" It's bullspit, but it's effective. It's also apples and oranges compared to DTC-Rx.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,530
6,483
1,743
Yukon, OK
#38
You obviously have infinite more knowledge on this issue than I, but I guess I don't understand. For example, it's hard for me to fathom that when those restless leg syndrome commercials aired, the manufactured would have sold the same amount of drugs by not advertising at all.

Additionally, being in my late 30s I know lots of guys my age that have gotten into the Testosterone therapy because of the radio ads.
Here's how I envision most of these going down:

Some schmuck sees commercial for new drug, goes "oh my lordy, I have that!", makes an appointment with their Dr, goes in and say "Doc! I saw this commercial for that [insert name here but pronounced wrong] drug and I'm pretty sure I've got [insert random illness/disease/disorder]! I need you to write me a scrip for that. Does medicaid cover it??" Doctor stares in disbelief and tries to figure out a way to politely tell them they have no idea what they're talking about, he's not going to write a prescription for it and "Sir/Ma'am, this is a veterinary office"

Ok, so maybe not the vet part but the rest of it is pretty much how I see those commercials working. I'm sure they do bring some people to the doctor but doctors aren't just going to write a prescription for something because the patient saw a commercial for it and thinks they need it.
 

Rixaroo

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Jun 16, 2011
947
1,254
643
OKC
www.weekendwatchguide.com
#39
That's exactly the case. There hasn't been a single study that I'm aware of that has ever shown that DTC-Rx advertising has had an effect on market share. As I've said, everyone does it because everyone does it and the only thing we know for sure is that it increases costs.

The radio ads you're talking about aren't the same thing. They're not selling a drug, they're selling a service. "Come get your Low-T tested and we'll make your pecker work, guaranteed or your money back!" It's bullspit, but it's effective. It's also apples and oranges compared to DTC-Rx.
OK, understood. Thank you.