Prescription drug companies, are you listening?

By Jeff Orvis

In the past, I've commented on how corporations are cutting quantities of products, most notably in the grocery stores, in an apparent sneaky attempt to boost profits at the expense of consumers. When was the last time you were able to buy a one-pound can of coffee, apart from those trendy natural food places? Major brands have been cutting the number of ounces in their least expensive sizes for a number of years now.

There seems to be more water in a can of vegetables, more liquid in soup cans and even air bubbles in toothpaste tubes.

I realize companies are in it to make money. But what about integrity? Is this any way to reward customer loyalty?

My near constant companion these days is TV. It's the first thing I turn on when I walk in the door after being gone. I may not pay constant attention to what's on, but I've learned how to multitask with a baseball or hockey game on.

I have become a bit amazed at the number of ads for prescription drugs on shows at any time of the day or night. We've all heard horror stories about the high price of some prescription drugs. Big Pharma will try to tell you that those increasing costs are due to the costs of research of new medications. But I would bet we would all be amazed if suddenly these companies were forced to open their financials to public inspection. What do you think it costs to produce a thirty second TV ad on the nightly network news? Then how much does it cost to buy the commercial time?

What is especially appalling is how you will see an ad for gastrointestinal distress, for example and after spending 15 seconds extolling the qualities of the product, complete with a happy couple frolicking in a meadow on a picnic, you hear a voice telling you that certain people might die if they take this stuff, or at the very least, you will quit breathing or your nose will fall off. Of course, the companies were undoubtedly advised to say these disclaimers in their ads to avoid nasty lawsuits in the event that something goes horribly wrong.

What I've noticed is even as they are running through the possible side effects of their product, you still see the couples frolicking in the meadow, or paddling in a canoe or moms baking cookies with their kids. That way, the visual effect will make you want to use that drug and make you forget the warnings that are playing in the background.

I think somebody ought to make these companies hire actors to simulate the possible side effects of their drugs, while these warnings are being read. The first time a drug company has to portray certain bodily functions or show a person's nose turning black and falling off, the TV networks would have to decline to sell them air time.

At the end of these ads, you are urged to ask your doctor if this miracle drug is right for you. With the dwindling number of general practice physicians, they often have little time to explain what is wrong with you, let alone explain to some woman why a product to improve erectile function is probably not right for her. I've asked doctors if there is any good reason for their patients to suggest a drug they have seen advertised. The doctors usually shake their heads and roll their eyes.

The point is we are not doctors. We may know that we are not feeling well, but if you trust your doctor, wouldn't it make more sense spending his or her valuable time briefly explaining how you are feeling, then let the examination commence? Drug companies are trying to put pressure on doctors, through their patients, to sell drugs. If the TV and print ads suddenly disappeared and the drug companies went back to giving doctors free pens, an occasional meal or maybe even a vacation, I'll bet the cost of prescription drugs would plummet. The companies could also use part of their savings on some of that expensive research, giving their investors a dividend and bribing a congressman or two.