Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in Canada: Permission by default?

David M. Gardner, Barbara Mintzes and Aleck Ostry
CMAJ September 02, 2003 169 (5) 425-427;
David M. Gardner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara Mintzes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aleck Ostry
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The advertising of prescription drugs aimed directly at the public is prohibited in most countries, including Canada. However, a shift in interpretation of the policy governing this marketing strategy, known as direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), has occurred in Canada, resulting in its partial introduction without public and parliamentary debate.1 Consultations on the potential introduction of DTCA have been held by Health Canada since 1996, but there has been little interest in allowing DTCA from health professional and consumer organizations or provincial governments.2 Despite this, some forms of advertising of prescription drugs to consumers have become widespread. It is important for clinicians to be aware of how DTCA has developed in Canada, its current status and potential outcomes for health care.

There are 3 types of prescription drug advertisements aimed at the public: product claim advertisements, which include both the product name and specific therapeutic claims; reminder advertisements, which provide the name of a product without stating its use; and help-seeking advertisements, which inform consumers of new but unspecified treatment options for diseases or conditions. All 3 forms of advertising are permitted in the United States. In Canada, although all 3 forms appear to contravene the Food and Drugs Act, reminder advertisements and help-seeking advertisements are now everyday events in broadcast and print advertising, with little or no regulatory response.

Canada's Food and Drugs Act prohibits DTCA in 2 ways. First, it prohibits the advertising of any drug to the general public as a treatment, preventive or cure for serious diseases (Schedule A diseases). Second, it prohibits the advertising of prescription-only medicines (regardless of indication).2,3 The only relevant amendment to the Act occurred in 1978, in which a clause approving the advertising of drug prices was added. The amended section reads “Where a person advertises to the general public a Schedule F Drug [a prescription drug], the person shall not make any representation other than with respect to the brand name, proper name, common name, price and quantity of the drug.”3 This amendment, which was added to allow for competition between pharmacies, does not make allowances for the inclusion of additional information, such as text, sound or images. So, if the regulations have not changed to permit DTCA in Canada, what has? The answer appears to be found in policy statements published by Health Canada that imply that the Act and its regulations have been reinterpreted.

In 1996, a policy statement that set out to define the boundary between information dissemination and advertising suggested that Health Canada was ready to relax its interpretation of the Act.4 It stated that Health Canada “recognizes the importance to the pharmaceutical industry and to the general public of being able to disseminate and access nonpromotional information regarding drugs for human use.” The effect of this statement was tacit approval of help-seeking advertisements for serious diseases. A policy paper released in November 2000 suggested an even more liberalized reinterpretation of the Act.5 It explicitly stated that help-seeking and reminder advertisements, but not product claim advertisements, were legal.

The responsibility for interpreting and enforcing drug-advertising regulations lies with Health Canada. How this works in practice is complex and, because of resource limitations, involves other bodies with delegated mandates, including the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB) and Advertising Standards Canada (ASC). PAAB regulates pharmaceutical advertising to health professionals and ASC has primarily focused on over-the-counter drug advertising targeted to consumers. Manufacturers submit advertisements to these bodies on a voluntary basis for pre-clearance. These bodies also handle complaints. There are important differences in the process for DTCA (Mr. Ray Chepesiuk, Commissioner, PAAB: personal communication, 2003). First, to comply with Health Canada's 1996 policy and the applicable laws the term advertisement cannot be used, because advertising prescription drugs to Canadians is illegal.4 Second, there is no option for pre-clearance. Instead, manufacturers can, on a voluntary basis, provide “nonpromotional information” submissions to PAAB or ASC requesting advice to determine whether or not they are in compliance with Health Canada guidelines.4 And, third, complaints are handled only by Health Canada.

The problems with this system are evident. Advertisements can be released to the general public without being reviewed by government regulators or their delegated bodies. Response to complaints tends to be slow, probably reflecting Health Canada's undercapacity to regulate DTCA, and, arguably, ineffectual.6 For example, a television advertisement for Zyban (bupropion) was allowed to run for months, although Health Canada judged it to contravene the law.7 An added concern arises when Health Canada decisions on specific advertising campaigns appear to directly contravene the Food and Drugs Act. For example, reminder and help-seeking advertisements that appeared concurrently for Alesse (ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel) were each individually judged to be legal.8 In practice, this means that regulation of the accuracy of DTCA in Canada is haphazard.

The rationale for prohibiting the advertising of prescription drugs to consumers is public safety. Compared with over-the-counter drugs, prescription-only products are generally more toxic and are used to treat conditions that are not easily self-diagnosed and self-managed. Moreover, heavily advertised drugs tend to be newer and, thus, there is less information available regarding their relative benefits and risks. As a result, DTCA stimulates early uptake of these drugs in the marketplace9 and, in cases of unforeseen harms, magnifies the dangers of their use. Examples of drugs marketed to the public that were soon found to be harmful include benoxaprofen, cisapride, alosetron and troglitazone.10,11,12,13 The finding that 20% of new drugs eventually receive new black box warnings on the product monograph after marketing or are withdrawn from the market because of serious safety concerns supports the concern that DTCA may contribute to public harm.14

Supporters claim that DTCA responds to the consumer's right to information and need for information about prescription drugs and about health care choices.15,16,17 Whereas providing consumers with information about prescription drugs is a shared goal by those for and against DTCA, there is no evidence that DTCA adequately achieves this goal. In contrast, an evaluation of 320 magazine advertisements of 101 brand-name pharmaceuticals found that few advertisements reported illness-related precursors, illness prevalence or common misconceptions about the condition or its treatments, that alternative treatments were discussed in less than 30% of advertisements and that less than 10% of advertisements stated the treatment's success rate.18

Other stated benefits of DTCA include earlier diagnosis of serious conditions, better treatment adherence and improved health outcomes.15,16,17 However, evidence to support these claims is weak or absent.19 The only empirical study to test the effect of DTCA on disease diagnoses found that 11% of patients had new diagnoses of “high-priority” conditions as a result of consultations prompted at least in part by DTCA.20 This study, however, failed to include a control group, making it impossible to estimate the effect of DTCA on the rate of new diagnoses.21 A final argument for DTCA is increased consumer awareness of new, improved drug therapies. There is ample evidence that DTCA has increased consumer awareness of advertised prescription products16,20,22,23 and that this has affected consumer behaviour and physician prescribing practices,24 but very few new drugs have demonstrated advantages over standard therapies.25,26 Several evaluations of newly patented medications have found that only a small proportion provide important therapeutic gains: 16% in the United States before 1992, 6% in Canada in 1996–2000 and 3.4% in France in 1981–2000.27,28,29,30 Moreover, new products can be inferior to comparable therapies, as was found with 2.6% of new approvals in France.30 Another perspective is that DTCA helps consumers to become aware of consistently more expensive new treatment alternatives.9,19

The costs associated with DTCA have generated significant concerns. In the United States, investment into DTCA grew from $791 million in 1996 to $2.5 billion in 2000, representing 32% of total spending on the promotion of prescription drugs (exclusive of product sample costs).9 This sharp increase in spending was a result of regulatory changes that facilitated radio and television advertising of prescription drugs.16 All expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical industry are incorporated into a drug's price and recovered through product sales. In other words, consumers pay for DTCA, either in the price of the prescription or through insurance premiums or through taxes. All those who pay insurance premiums or taxes feel the costs of DTCA, whether or not they take advertised medicines. Because of concerns that DTCA increases demand by consumers and drug expenditures for third-party payers, Canadian provinces have stated their preferences for a continued ban on DTCA in Canada.2 Despite this, DTCA has moved forward in Canada.

In March 2002, federal Health Minister Anne McLellan questioned the value of DTCA based on the US experience: “The doctor tells them there is no increased or enhanced effectiveness by providing the drug advertised, but the patient is very persistent once they see the advertisement. One has to question whether you are getting better medical outcomes.”31 Not addressed by this statement are the public health concerns and cost implications of Health Canada's recently relaxed policies regarding DTCA that allow for help-seeking and reminder advertisements. These policy changes are not in keeping with the spirit or the wording of the Act, its 1978 amendment or the view stated publicly by the health minister.

The aim of banning DTCA is not to limit consumer access to health information. On the contrary, the goal is to provide consumers with independently developed, balanced, comparative information on the full range of available medical treatments. The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Consumers' Association of Canada have all taken strong policy positions against the introduction of DTCA, calling instead for publicly financed alternatives.

The current state of DTCA in Canada, with regulatory creep occurring behind closed doors, is unacceptable. Legislation banning DTCA either needs to be reinforced or put to public and parliamentary debate. If loopholes exist in the Act, clarifying wording can be introduced along with regulations to further limit entry of US DTCA. The issues at stake — public health and the sustainability of health care services — are too important to be quietly set aside.

𝛃 See related articles pages 405 and 421

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

    Contributors: Each author contributed substantively to this paper. Dr. Gardner completed the early research, drafted early versions of the paper and integrated feedback from the other authors. Dr. Mintzes significantly reformulated the paper and added key content and perspective. Dr. Ostry drafted the initial version of the commentary, which was taken from a larger body of work that all the authors had developed.

    Acknowledgements: Dr. Gardner is supported by a Department of Psychiatry infrastructure grant from the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation. Dr. Ostry holds a New Investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Scholar Award from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Dr. Mintzes holds a postdoctoral fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Silversides A. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements getting bolder. CMAJ 2001;165(4):462.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs [discussion document]. 1999 Apr 6. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/oria-bari/99-04-14_3_e.html (accessed 2003 July 30).
  3. 3.↵
    Food and Drugs Act. Regulation C.01.044. Available: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/F-27/C.R.C.-c.870/125114.html (accessed 2003 Aug 5).
  4. 4.↵
    Michols DM. The distinction between advertising and other activities [policy statement]. Ottawa: Health Canada, Therapeutic Products Programme; 1996. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/tpd-dpt/advsactv_e.html (updated 2003 Jan 30) (accessed 2003 July 30).
  5. 5.↵
    Rowsell LB. Advertising campaigns of branded and unbranded messages [policy statement]. Ottawa: Health Canada, Therapeutic Products Directorate; 2000. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/tpd-dpt/adv_campaign_e.html (updated 2003 Jan 30) (accessed 2003 June 23).
  6. 6.↵
    Mintzes B. The truth, the half truth, and nothing like the truth. Regulation of drug promotion in Canada. In: Barer ML, McGral KM, Cardiff K, Wood L, Green CJ, editors. Tales from the other drug wars. Papers from the 12th Annual Health Policy Conference; 1999 Nov 26; Vancouver. Vancouver: Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia; 1999. Available: www.chspr.ubc.ca//misc/drugwars2.pdf (accessed 2003 July 30).
  7. 7.↵
    CBC-TV Undercurrents “The battle over a drug ad.” [Transcript, Canadian NewsDisc]. 2001 Feb 4.
  8. 8.↵
    Letter from Bérubé A, Chief, Therapeutics Products Inspection Division, Bureau of Compliance and Enforcement, Health Canada, to J. Halmost-Stark, Director, Regulatory Affairs. Wyeth-Ayerst Canada, re: Alesse advertising campaign. 2000 Nov 2.
  9. 9.↵
    National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. Prescription drugs and mass media advertising, 2000 [report]. Washington: The National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Educational Foundation; 2001. Available: www.nihcm.org/DTCbrief2001.pdf (accessed 2003 July 30).
  10. 10.↵
    Gale EAM. Lessons from the glitazones: a story of drug development. Lancet 2001;357:1870-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Willman D. How a new policy led to seven deadly drugs. Los Angeles Times 2000 Dec 20; Sect A:1.
  12. 12.↵
    Mintzes B. Blurring the boundaries: new trends in drug promotion. In: Promotion targeting consumers. Amsterdam: HAI-Europe; 1998. Available: www.haiweb.org/pubs/blurring/blurring.intro.html (accessed 2003 July 30).
  13. 13.↵
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Tremmel J, Welch HG. Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: What are Americans being sold? Lancet 2001; 358:1141-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, Bor DH. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002;287:2215-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Calfee J. Public policy issues in direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. J Public Policy Mark 2002; 21:174-93.
  16. 16.↵
    Lyles A. Direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:73-91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Holmer AF. Direct-to-consumer advertising — strengthening our health care system. N Engl J Med 2002;346:526-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Bell RA, Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. The educational value of consumer-targeted prescription drug print advertising. J Fam Pract 2000;49:1092-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: The evidence says no. J Public Policy Market 2002;21:194-201.
  20. 20.↵
    Weissman JS, Blumenthal D, Silk AJ, Zapert K, Newman M, Leitman R. Consumers' reports on the health effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Health Affairs 2003:W3(Web exclusive):82-95. Available: www.healthaffairs.org/WebExclusives/Weissman_Web_Excl_022603.htm (accessed 2003 Jul 29).
  21. 21.↵
    Bodenheimer T. Two advertisements for TV drug ads. Health Affairs 2003: W3 (Web exclusive):112-5. Available: www.healthaffairs.org/WebExclusives/Bodenheimer_Web_Excl_022603.htm. (accessed 2003 Jul 29).
  22. 22.↵
    Slaughter E, Schumacher M. Prevention's international survey on wellness and consumer reactions to DTCA of Rx drugs. Emmaus (PA): Prevention Magazine, Rodale Press; 2000/01.
  23. 23.↵
    Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration. Attitudes and behaviors associated with direct-to-consumer (DTC) promotion of prescription drugs. Rockville (MD): The Centre; 1999. Available: www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac/dtctitle.htm (accessed 2003 July 30).
  24. 24.↵
    Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, Kazanjian A, Bassett K, Lexchin J, et al. Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. BMJ 2002; 324 : 278-9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Lexchin J. Should doctors be prescribing new drugs. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002;15:213-22.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Prescription drug expenditures in 2001: another year of escalating costs. Washington: The National Institute for Health Care Management; 2002. Available: www.nihcm.org/spending2001.pdf (accessed 2003 June 12).
  27. 27.↵
    Drake D, Uhlman M. Making medicine, making money. Kansas City (MO): Andrews and McMeel; 1993.
  28. 28.↵
    Kaitin K, Phelan NR, Raiford D, Morris B. Therapeutic ratings and end-of-phase II conferences: initiatives to accelerate the availability of important new drugs. J Clin Pharmacol 1991;31:17-24.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Annual Report 2000. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada; 2000. Available: www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/View.asp?x=113&mp=91 (accessed 2003 July 30).
  30. 30.↵
    A look back at 2000: overabundance and deregulation. Prescrire Int 2001; 10: 52-4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    McGregor G. Ban on drug ads to stay: McLellan. Minister refuses to loosen regulations despite lobbying by manufacturers, media. Ottawa Citizen 2002 Mar 23;Sect A:7.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 5
2 Sep 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in Canada: Permission by default?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in Canada: Permission by default?
David M. Gardner, Barbara Mintzes, Aleck Ostry
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (5) 425-427;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in Canada: Permission by default?
David M. Gardner, Barbara Mintzes, Aleck Ostry
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (5) 425-427;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA
  • Supported by an unrestricted educational grant
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Medication safety: opening up the black box
  • Le Canada devrait-il autoriser la publicite directe des medicaments d'ordonnance?: NON
  • Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?: NO
  • Direct to consumer advertising
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
  • Improving post-tuberculosis care in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire