patient communication with physicians and participation in their own healthcare (AMA, 2000). Consequently, the AMA has rejected a proposal to support a ban on DTCA (Lenzer, 2005). Based on a survey of 2,300 physicians, IMS health reports 52% disapprove of the practice (Yuan & Duckwitz, 2002). A recent FDA study reveals that most physicians are concerned that their patients do not sufficiently understand the risks of DTC advertised medication (Aikin, Swasy, & Braman, 2004). The survey also found a more positive view of DTCA, whereby 40% said the DTCA had a positive effect on their patients and practice, 28% said that there was no effect at all, and 32% said that DTC advertising had a somewhat negative effect. 72% of surveyed physicians believed that DTC advertising raises awareness of possible health treatments. (Aikin, Swasy, & Braman, 2004) A study by Roth (1996) found that pharmacists assessed that one-third of DTC print ads did not present a balance” of information, omitting “fair information that may be useful to consumers. In also, physicians disagree on the likely impact of DTCA. Some of the top medical schools have issued reports condemning the practice (Scrip, 2003). In 1999, results of a fax poll published by the Royal College of New Zealand General Practitioners (RCNZGP) suggested that 75% of doctors wanted to see fewer DTC ads or ban DTCA altogether. In 2001, the opposition dropped to 65%, which is still high (Reast, Palihawadana, & Spickett-Jones, 2004). The RCNZGP expressed concerns about the accessibility, accuracy, and balance of DTCA information. Overall, though, the RCNZGP, together with the New Zealand Medical Association, recognizes that the pharmaceutical industry has taken a responsible approach to DTCA and supports its continuation (Hoek & Gendall, 2002b). Initial prescription medication advertising generated a number of complaints that the activity would adversely impact on doctor-patient relationships. In , half of doctors believe that DTCA
patient communication with physicians and participation in their own healthcare (AMA, 2000). Consequently, the AMA has rejected a proposal to support a ban on DTCA (Lenzer, 2005). Based on a survey of 2,300 physicians, IMS health reports 52% disapprove of the practice (Yuan & Duckwitz, 2002). A recent FDA study reveals that most physicians are concerned that their patients do not sufficiently understand the risks of DTC advertised medication (Aikin, Swasy, & Braman, 2004). The survey also found a more positive view of DTCA, whereby 40% said the DTCA had a positive effect on their patients and practice, 28% said that there was no effect at all, and 32% said that DTC advertising had a somewhat negative effect. 72% of surveyed physicians believed that DTC advertising raises awareness of possible health treatments. (Aikin, Swasy, & Braman, 2004) A study by Roth (1996) found that pharmacists assessed that one-third of DTC print ads did not present a “fair balance” of information, omitting information that may be useful to consumers. In also, physicians disagree on the likely impact of DTCA. Some of the top medical schools have issued reports condemning the practice (Scrip, 2003). In 1999, results of a fax poll published by the Royal College of New Zealand General Practitioners (RCNZGP) suggested that 75% of doctors wanted to see fewer DTC ads or ban DTCA altogether. In 2001, the opposition dropped to 65%, which is still high (Reast, Palihawadana, & Spickett-Jones, 2004). The RCNZGP expressed concerns about the accessibility, accuracy, and balance of DTCA information. Overall, though, the RCNZGP, together with the New Zealand Medical Association, recognizes that the pharmaceutical industry has taken a responsible approach to DTCA and supports its continuation (Hoek & Gendall, 2002b). Initial prescription medication advertising generated a number of complaints that the activity would adversely impact on doctor-patient relationships. In , half of doctors believe that DTCA
DTC_Submission_HC_20060608.docx