Is there some proof that big pharma really targets sick people? The article mentions targeting for things like "cancer awareness" as a proxy for cancer patients.
But why target patients? Patients usually don't decide on the drugs they take, doctors do, they should be the target, not patients.
So maybe we can take things at face value, big pharma is not targeting cancer patients, instead they are targeting those who are the most likely to have an interest in cancer besides patients: health professionals.
Note: I don't live in the US, and generally, only doctors get ads about prescription drugs, I heard the situation is different in the US for some reason.
When I visited the US a few years ago it seems like every TV ad break there was a "Feeling X, ask your doctor about Y". Where X was some generic condition like bloating or feeling old, and X was a brand name prescription drug.
I can categorically say that is untrue. While not a fan of direct pharmaceutical marketing, the FDA has strict rules about what needs to be in an advertisement. Chiefly, it must address:
* At least one approved use for the drug (the actual medical condition that it has been tested for)
* The generic name
* Nearly every side effect the drug can give you. There are some side-rules on that one.
The OP said 'generic symptoms.' There are no prescription drugs for 'generic symptoms', they must have a specific approved use and they must be mentioned verbally in the commercial. Here is the evidence to the contrary:
Yeah but let's be real, while the "specific approved use" might be clear to a medical practitioner in a journal write-up related to FDA approval, the actual prescription ads shown to normal people attempt to use as general simple wording as possible to describe symptoms. To laypeople these start to blur together to very simple statements like "feeling tired? Worried about excessive weight gain?" While these might be symptoms of a specific FDA approved use of the drug, it results in an atmosphere of confusion for normal folks.
Is there a practical difference between intentionally targeting cancer patients and intentionally targeting proxy signals for cancer patients?
This is the whole part of internet marketing targeting right? You don't know for certain if someone is a cancer patient without their medical records, so you record a load of signals and infer that someone is likely to require cancer medication in the absence of absolute information.
The patient can say to the doctor "I feel that X drug may be better for me than Y". Sure, ultimately it's the doctor decision, but if patient puts enough pressure and the doctor thinks that there is no material difference between X and Y except e.g. price, they may side with the patient for the sake of their peace of mind. You know the placebo factor etc.
The ads are effective to bring awareness. There are doctors who will “help” patients to discover if they have conditions to warrant the use of the drugs they saw on TV or social media ads.
This brings patients to doctors, then they get lab work done and finally the use of drugs. That activates the full value chain of the system meaning that all the participants in that chain get paid.
So, in the end, it is not a bad thing if it gets patients to be treated early.
Sure, the goal is to sell stuff and make money, but if it makes people healthier, we shouldn't complain. It is only a bad thing if it results in a less effective treatment.
But why target patients? Patients usually don't decide on the drugs they take, doctors do, they should be the target, not patients.
So maybe we can take things at face value, big pharma is not targeting cancer patients, instead they are targeting those who are the most likely to have an interest in cancer besides patients: health professionals.
Note: I don't live in the US, and generally, only doctors get ads about prescription drugs, I heard the situation is different in the US for some reason.