Trade Agreements and Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals

Document Type : Perspective

Authors

1 School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

2 Waikato Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

There is growing international concern about the risks posed by direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription pharmaceuticals, including via the internet. Recent trade agreements negotiated by the United States, however, incorporate provisions that may constrain national regulation of DTCA. Some provisions explicitly mention DTCA; others enable foreign investors to seek compensation if new regulations are seen to harm their investments. These provisions may thus prevent countries from restricting DTCA or put them at risk of expensive legal action from companies seeking damages due to restrictions on advertising. While the most recent example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), collapsed following US withdrawal in January 2017, early indications of the Trump Administration’s trade policy agenda signal an even more aggressive approach on the part of the United States in negotiating advantages for American businesses. Furthermore, the eleven remaining TPP countries may decide to proceed with the agreement in the absence of the United States, with most of the original text (including the provisions relevant to DTCA) intact.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Gleeson D, Friel S. Emerging threats to public health from regional trade agreements. Lancet. 2013;381(9876):1507-1509. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60312-8
  2. Gilbody S, Wilson P, Watt I. Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(4):246-250. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.012781
  3. Faerber AE, Kreling DH. Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(1):110-118. doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2604-0
  4. Onakpoya IJ, Heneghan CJ, Aronson JK. Delays in the post-marketing withdrawal of drugs to which deaths have been attributed: a systematic investigation and analysis. BMC Med. 2015;13:26. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0262-7
  5. Kim H. Trouble spots in online direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion: a content analysis of FDA Warning Letters. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(12):813-821. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.157
  6. Liu Q, Gupta S. The impact of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs on physician visits and drug requests: Empirical findings and public policy implications. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2011;28(3):205-217. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.04.001
  7. Liu Q, Gupta S. Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals: an integrative review. In: Ding M, Eliashberg J, Stremersch S, eds. Innovation and Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Emerging Practices, Research, and Policies. New York: Springer; 2014:629-649.
  8. Gagnon MA, Lexchin J. The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e1. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001
  9. Mailankody S, Prasad V. Pharmaceutical marketing for rare diseases: regulating drug company promotion in an era of unprecedented advertisement. JAMA. 2017;317(24):2479-2480. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.5784
  10. Rockwell KL. Direct-to-consumer medical testing in the era of value-based care. JAMA. 2017;317(24):2485-2486. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.5929
  11. Mackey TK. Digital direct-to-consumer advertising: a perfect storm of rapid evolution and stagnant regulation: Comment on "Trouble spots in online direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion: a content analysis of FDA warning letters." Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(4):271-274. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.11
  12. Every-Palmer S, Duggal R, Menkes DB. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2014;127(1401):102-110.
  13. McCarthy M. US physician group calls for ban on direct to consumer drug advertising. BMJ. 2015;351:h6230. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6230
  14. Velo G, Moretti U. Direct-to-consumer information in Europe: the blurred margin between promotion and information. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;66(5):626-628. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03283.x
  15. Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, Annex 2-C: Pharmaceuticals, Article 5.  http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/trade-investment/australia-united-states-free-trade-agreement/Pages/chapter-two-national-treatment-and-market-access-for-goods.aspx. Accessed February 5, 2016.
  16. Lopert R, Gleeson D. The high price of "free" trade: U.S. trade agreements and access to medicines. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(1):199-223. doi:10.1111/jlme.12014
  17. Paek HJ, Lee H, Praet CLC, et al. Pharmaceutical Advertising in Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, and the US: Current Conditions and Future Directions. http://www.coms.hkbu.edu.hk/karachan/file/HCR_Pharmaceutical_ad_in_Asia%202011.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2016. Published 2011.
  18. Monasterio E, Gleeson D. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement: exacerbation of inequality for patients with serious mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48(12):1077-1080. doi:10.1177/0004867414557679
  19. Freeman J, Keating G, Monasterio E, Neuwelt P, Gleeson D. Call for transparency in new generation trade deals. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):604-605. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60233-1
  20. New Zealand Government. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement Ministerial Statement. https://beehive.govt.nz/release/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-agreement-ministerial-statement. Accessed May 21, 2017. Published 2017.
  21. Moir J. TPP talks to push on without US support but NZ election could scupper it.. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92816590/tpp-talks-to-push-on-without-us-support-but-nz-election-could-scupper-it. Accessed June 15, 2017. Published May 21, 2017
  22. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. Annex 26-A, Article 4. 2016. https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text. Accessed February 5, 2016.
  23. Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada. Notice of Arbitration. http://www.italaw.com/cases/1625 . Accessed April 18, 2017. Published 2013.
  24. Gaukrodger D, Gordon K. Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2012/03, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5k46b1r85j6f-en. Accessed March 18, 2016.
  25. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Issues Note No. 1: Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d3_en.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2016. Published 2014.
  26. Office of the United States Trade Representative. The President’s 2017 Trade Policy Agenda. In: 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/AnnualReport/AnnualReport2017.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2017. Published 2017.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 July 2017
  • Revise Date: 07 October 2017
  • Accept Date: 07 October 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 February 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics