Charleston Daily Mail, November 3, 2005

Letter to the Editor:

Dave Peyton's recent column, "Advertising drugs raises drug prices," on Oct. 28, repeats a lot of rhetoric while ignoring a lot of facts.

Study after study after study done by charitable foundations, the federal government and industry all show that the price of a drug does not correlate to the amount spent on advertising.

In other words, if you look at four medicines that treat cholesterol and compare their advertising budgets, the one that spends the most is not necessarily the most expensive -- and often the reverse is true.

That being said, Peyton has allowed his vitriol to conquer his intellect.

Consider this: According to Tufts University it costs about $802 million dollars to bring a new medicine to market. That's $802 million per drug -- and those are the ones that make it to market.

Now compare that to the $2.5 billion per year the industry spends on advertising and you have a somewhat better perspective. Reducing direct-to-consumer drug advertising would not reduce the price of drugs.

It also seems that Peyton doesn't think people should be talking with their physicians about new medications. That's so 20th century. One in six doctor visits happen because a patient saw an advertisement.

A reduction in advertising wouldn't reduce the price of medicines, but it would most certainly reduce the number of people visiting their doctors, and I cannot imagine that Peyton thinks that is a good thing.

And here's some data from a recent FDA research study: Doctors do not prescribe medicines just because their patients ask for them after seeing an advertisement. They're prescribing medicines because their patients need them. That's called progress.

Peter J. Pitts is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and director of its Center for Medicines in the Public Interest.