Avorn Nixes Loosened Drug Communication
Harvard Medical School professor Jerry Avorn raises objections to the loosening of First Amendment controls on what drug manufacturers are permitted to say about their products. Writing in a Health Affairs blog post, he says the “real issue is whether we as a society feel that there is something special about human illness and its treatment that warrants a different legal status than promotional statements made about refrigerators.”
He notes that traditionally, communication about medications has been granted a privileged status different from that accorded to other forms of communications because consumers and even health professionals are not able to easily acquire all the information they need to make informed decisions. But, he says, “large teams of FDA scientists with expertise in pharmacology, clinical trials, epidemiology, statistics, and several other disciplines take six to 10 months to review the massive dossiers submitted by manufacturers to win drug approval. The idea that unfettered ‘commercial free speech’ would make it possible for prescribers to come up with equally useful determinations on their own is simply implausible.”
Avorn acknowledges that overtly fraudulent statements still will not be permitted if drug promotional claims are in a class of commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, but says that a study used in promotional materials could be inaccurate or misleading in many ways without being overtly fraudulent.
“As convinced as I am about this from the perspective of a clinician and drug researcher,” he concludes, “I fear that I will be on the losing side of this battle. The rampant forces of commercial free speech zealotry that are working in the service of corporate empowerment are likely to win this battle. Paradoxically, patients’ rights to the best possible care will be diminished in the process.”