A model for addressing stakeholders' concerns about direct‐to‐consumer advertising of prescription medicines

Abstract

PurposeTo explore how a “harm chain” analysis could identify and address stakeholders' concerns about direct‐to‐consumer advertising of prescription medicines (DTCA).Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses the development of stakeholder theory before exploring and discussing the tension between normative and instrumental logic. The authors adopt a utilitarian perspective, which they use to identify the range of stakeholders involved with or affected by DTCA.FindingsA “harm chain” analysis identifies common concerns held by stakeholders; these include disquiet over the quality of information provided via DTCA and possible derogation of doctors' role as prescribers. The paper outlines prescriptive advertising guidelines that could address these issues, but notes that failure to achieve a satisfactory reduction in harm potential may result in a ban on DTCA.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough a utilitarian norm will not satisfy all stakeholders' interests, the authors believe that it will produce the greatest reduction in harm, as well as maximising the benefits that can result from DTCA. The conclusions imply the need for independent monitoring of DTCA's effects on stakeholder groups to ensure that regulations governing this advertising are broadly based.Practical implicationsThe authors suggest changes to DTCA regulation, specifically the introduction of a “fair balance” criterion and a statement explicitly recognising doctors' role in determining appropriate treatments.Originality/valueAlthough the debate over DTCA has been well documented, this paper represents the first attempt to use stakeholder theory to explore the ethical issues associated with this advertising. The analysis produces a decision‐making model that the authors recommend should guide future policy decisions.

Consumer attitudes toward pharmaceutical direct‐to‐consumer advertising

“…Increased costs to the patient, insurer, and/or taxpayer are also thought to occur due to DTC-motivated demand for unnecessary prescriptions (Hoek and Maubach, 2005) or more expensive, branded medications as compared to equally-effective generic alternatives (Calfee, 2002). Overall, this criticism suggests that pharmaceutical advertisers may not be putting the public's best interest ahead of the profit motive (Coney, 2002;Lexchin and Mintzes, 2002;Spake and Joseph, 2007).…”

The Fine Jewellery Industry: Corporate Responsibility Challenges and Institutional Forces Facing SMEs

“…Previous studies have used and extended this theoretical framework in various contexts such as the clothing industry (Carrigan et al 2013a), social marketing, public policy and alcohol consumption (Hastings and Domegan 2013;Previte and Fry 2006), tourism (Clarke et al 2014) and pharmaceuticals (Hoek and Maubach 2005). We have selected it for our study given its suitability for addressing the relationship between stakeholder responsibility and small business practice throughout the supply chain, with a focus on both the positive and negative dimensions of this relationship.…”

Regulating Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing: Development, Enforcement, and Outcome of Marketing Rules

“…For example, Conrad and Leiter () have accused the FDA's permissive policies regarding DTCA of being at least partly responsible for the alleged medically unjustifiable increase in the use of drugs in the US, although others point to similar trends in comparable countries where DTCA for prescription drugs is banned (Abraham ). Concerns about the negative effects of DTCA on health have also been raised in New Zealand, where the practice is also allowed (Hoek and Maubach ), although industry representatives assert that such concerns are effectively addressed by the independent pre‐vetting of all consumer ads (Sheehy ).…”