The impact of advertising on healthcare prescription: the case of Malaysia
Release Date: 2010-10-27
Earlier this month, S.M Mohamed Idris, President of the Consumers Association of Penang in Malaysia, questioned the risks and benefits of advertising in health care industry: “Will advertising by the medical profession help or cost the common man more, since the advertising costs will be worked into the fee payable?”
Nonetheless, Mr Liew, the minister of health, wishes to promote medical tourism calling for a relaxation of the 1956 advertising laws within the pharmaceutical industry. The law of Malaysia stipulates under the Advertisement and Sales Act that “certain advertisements relating to medical matters and to regulate the sale of substances recommended as a medicine are prohibited.” In addition to this Act there is also a Code of Conduct for Prescription Products, put in place by the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau (NPCB) of Malaysia, an institution working under the Ministry of Health (MOH) to implement quality control on pharmaceutical products. This code states that only members of the medical profession can receive promotional material for prescription drugs.
However, the government’s current trend towards liberalizing healthcare advertising is contentious. Indeed, Datuk Nancy Ho, president of the Malaysia Pharmaceutical Society (MPS), sees no need for aggressive advertising in the pharmacy service, although she states that the motivating factors for increasing medical tourism are legitimate. She told Focus Reports: “We can increase awareness through advertising, but our pharmacists should be service-driven rather than marketing-driven”. As for Idris, he is concerned by the risks involved in promoting prescription drugs: “Once fixated on trying a certain medicine, chances are patients will either pressure their doctor for a prescription or find another doctor who will supply it”.
Dr Geoffrey Spurling, from the University of Queensland, is the author of a systematic review published recently in the online journal PLoS Medicine investigating doctors’ behavior when exposed to promotional material. In his research, Spurling highlights the pharmaceutical companies’ claims that their promotional activities are educational and beneficial. However, he failed to find any proof of improvement in prescribing practices after exposure to advertising.
Having carried out his investigation together with a team of researchers from Australia, Canada and Malaysia, his findings support the case for reform in order to “reduce the negative influence of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribing.” Spurling found that in almost all cases “drug company information was associated with reduced prescribing quality and increased prescribing costs or no change”.
Spurling’s research coupled with the rising concerns of Malaysian associations will no doubt encourage the MOH to review the current liberalization of advertising laws in the healthcare sector.
| Type: | NORMAL |