<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>World of DTC Marketing </title><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/index.html</link><description>Updates</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2010 Richard Meyer</dc:rights><dc:date>2010-03-15T06:19:03-07:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:36:31 -0700</lastBuildDate><item><title>How to earn back trust with a very skeptical audience</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>None</category><dc:date>2010-03-15T06:19:03-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/9e536607261e9669b33020c68f760f94-1016.html#unique-entry-id-1016</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/9e536607261e9669b33020c68f760f94-1016.html#unique-entry-id-1016</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The drug industry does not have a good reputation right now with either consumers or physicians when it comes to the marketing of drugs.    It's important however to understand where you are when it comes to developing new marketing programs and not overreact to the media news.    Here are some recommendations;


Health Care Professional Marketing


1.   It might be a good idea to do some research with HCP's to rate the credibility of both your marketing materials and your sales reps.    Believe it or not physicians view different companies differently when it comes to trust and the credibility of the information they present.


2.   Do NOT selectively use content from journal articles.    You can highlight certain findings from the journal articles but it's better to give the physician the whole article so she/he can determine the facts for themselves.


3.   When a clinical study comes out questioning the efficacy of your product do NOT point fingers and question the methodology of that study.    This week both Medtronic and Abbott both tried to question clinical studies that showed their products may not have been effective as previously thought.     The objective here is to say "that data raises some questions but let me provide you with another point-of-view.


Consumer Marketing


1.   Acknowledge to your team that consumers are skeptical of your marketing and understand that it comes from a lot of factors that are both internal and external to the drug industry.


2.   License content from credible sources to use in your website and collateral material.


3.   Include links to other credible sites and competitors on your website.   Consumers are going to go there anyway so help them get all the information they need to make a decision.


4.   Align yourself with credible organizations and have the content you develop reviewed by them.


5.   Ask your thought leaders to write content for consumers and include the thought leaders credentials on when you use it.    Also be transparent that the thought leader is a paid consultant.


Understand that in any relationship TRUST is something that has to be earned; if that trust is broken than it can take a long long time to earn back that trust.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Building a great online experience for a health website</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Internet &#x26; healtcare marketing</category><dc:date>2010-03-14T07:31:59-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/1a7a7c4d59b3334d8e47fd0faed02284-1015.html#unique-entry-id-1015</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/1a7a7c4d59b3334d8e47fd0faed02284-1015.html#unique-entry-id-1015</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[While it's true that big pharma has a trust issue with the public it's also true that people continue to visit product.com websites as part of the process to collect and evaluate healthcare options.    I recently tested some leading product websites and was frankly amazed at how many websites don't work well in different browsers like Chrome and on smartphones.    This is basic testing and validation we're talking about here that should be part of your website development requirements.


The Internet maybe your most important channel to reach consumers right now but according to various sources it is still woefully underfunded compared to other channels like TV.     With all the data around that shows that more and more people are becoming eHealth consumers one has to ask if the people at pharma really don't get it or whether there is a lack of understanding of how the Internet influences healthcare choices ?


To download my new presentation on Developing a Healthcare website Please click here & let me know what ya think ?


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>eMarketing guidelines for health; A common sense approach </title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Internet &#x26; healtcare marketing</category><dc:date>2010-03-11T05:32:10-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/f05a1923bf5c4358914669b417b7306e-1014.html#unique-entry-id-1014</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/f05a1923bf5c4358914669b417b7306e-1014.html#unique-entry-id-1014</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It's amazing that PhRMA would come up with recommended guidelines that seem to be developed over a cup of coffee rather than really think about how consumers use and need health information online.    The people at PhRMA need to contact the sales people at Manhattan Research to get updated information before they pull ideas out of space.


Thinking about patients first here are some things that should be standard when it comes to Internet & Social Media marketing for drug and medical device companies:


1.   Drug & medical device companies can not be expected to monitor and respond to all social media posts by consumers.    There are way too many websites where consumers can post their opinions and although social media is used as part of health information searches most consumers do NOT rely on the information for their decisions. (100% that is)


2.   Credibility of information is important but adding an FDA logo to website searches or for content on websites would not necessarily mean a lot when people don't trust the FDA.    When drug companies first started to use the Internet as a marketing tool there were some companies who were willing to rate content credibility.    The problem is that these companies did not spend the marketing dollars necessary to inform and win over a skeptical public.     Drug companies websites should be urged to use third party content from institutions like Harvard Medical School or the Mayo Clinic whenever possible provided the content is credible.    Why drug companies don't ask their thought leaders (physicians) to write more content for websites is beyond me they are a great resource for patients.


3.   One click to fair balance should apply: Does the FDA really believe that someone is going to read a drug name on a search engine and make a healthcare decision based on that information ?     Why do warnings have to be in search results ?    The reality is that people, if interested, WILL click on the link and thus get the fair balance information.    News to the FDA: drug side effects and warning pages within websites are often the most viewed pages.


4.   Drug companies should be required to register customers of their products.    When we purchase software or even a coffee maker we are asked to register the product for updates.    Why can't the drug companies do the same thing so that they can keep patients informed on product updates (new indications, new warnings).    It also gives the drug companies a great tool to listen to their customers and use them as an online panel for new marketing programs not to mention the CRM possibilities.


5.   Google needs better enforcement of bogus websites:  Google is trying to get into ehealth in a big way.    Why they don't have a search engine devoted to just health is beyond me but than maybe the people at Google spend too much time in their playrooms.   The goal of health specific search engine would be to break down searched by credible health information, treatments and then products.    There are way too many illegal pharmacies that still show up on Google searches not to mention the quacks who promise that supplements can cure our ills without the need for prescription drugs.


6.   Use of social media for marketing of drugs: The same guidelines that apply to web marketing should apply to the use of social media.    Social media should be allowed as long as posts can be filtered and the company has process to report adverse events should a customer report one.    I would discourage the use of Twitter as a marketing tool because drug companies run the risk of having patients ask for medical advice and it requires 24/7 monitoring.


Finally if I were the FDA I would ask the people from Manhattan Research to come to Washington D.C. and begin a new research program to learn how the FDA and healthcare industry could both meet patient need when it comes to online health information.    This research should be funded by the FDA and made available to everyone when completed quarterly.      This would give patient a huge voice in decisions that directly effect the way they search for health information.  


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>PhRMA recommended guidelines for drug Internet Marketing are silly &#x26; Who speaks for patients ?</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>PhRMA Recommendations</category><dc:date>2010-03-10T10:50:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/be38d15105402bad6c673e4a3c3b6013-1013.html#unique-entry-id-1013</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/be38d15105402bad6c673e4a3c3b6013-1013.html#unique-entry-id-1013</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[J&J asked that companies not be held responsible for user comments they do not control.


This is needed and should be accepted practice.    There is no way that ANY drug company can control ALL user comments via any media.    Remember the Internet is about users not marketers.


Among the most self-serving, egotistical recommendations is the recommendation from Edelman that companies should have responsibility for user-generated content on their own sites.    Of course this would allow Edelman and others to sell pharma on their social media monitoring services.    Garbage pure and simple


PhRMA wants the FDA to adapt a universal symbol for some media like Twitter and Facebook but again does PhRMA really believe that is going to help in an era when consumers don't trust the drug industry or the FDA?    The answer to that is NO and it clearly shows that the drug industry is clueless when it comes to understanding HOW people are using online health information.   The FDA and the drug industry have a long road to travel to reestablish trust with a skeptical public.


Proposed Universal symbol: Does this really matter to consumers ?


(click to enlarge)


Lost in all these recommendations are consumers and patients.    They are the ones who are defining how health information is used and what health information is the best source of information.    I would also like to have seen some recommendations from from some physician groups like the AMA.    Physicians are being forced to digitize their practices and they should have input about how their patients receive and use online medical information.


Proposed information on search


And who is going to test this with consumers ?


The drug industry spends a lot of time and money testing everything from images to messages.    You would think that since the Internet is now the most important channel for health information someone who say "we need to study this with consumers" before submitting recommendations that don't mean a lot with a skeptical public.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Good health has a lot of benefits including more sex but are Americans interested ?</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Americans &#x26; Health</category><dc:date>2010-03-10T07:07:00-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/58f8530c9dcd8e984b4897230927fc73-1012.html#unique-entry-id-1012</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/58f8530c9dcd8e984b4897230927fc73-1012.html#unique-entry-id-1012</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA["If you are a man diagnosed with diabetes or high blood pressure and I tell you that you need to lose weight and take medication, and I can say the benefit is five extra years of sex life, you might be more inclined to do what I tell you," the author of a study on sex and health recently stated.    The problem is that very few physicians have the time to have this talk with their patients and it's too easy to just treat the condition rather than the patient.


Having trouble with intimacy ?    No problem just take Viagra as opposed to getting some exercise, watching what you eat and moving around instead of being a couch potato.     Have people become more used to counteracting bad health decisions because they can take a medication for it?    More studies are probably needed but I believe it's safe to say that a lot of people could control their high blood pressure and cholesterol with modifications to their diets and lifestyles.  


The FDA is in the process of a major overhaul of their guidelines for the marketing of prescription drugs and maybe it's time they required drug companies to band together and devote a certain percentage of their DTC marketing dollars to education and prevention.    I'm not talking about individual efforts, rather a one stop online website dedicated to how to get healthier when you have high blood pressure, consumer education on the dangers of sodium in your diet, and the fact that every extra pound we carry results in a shorter life span.    Sure I know it's hard but an integrated effort with insurers, companies (via their company intranets) and health portals has to be taken with physicians and other health care professionals as advisory board members.   We can't just say "it's too hard", we have to make an attempt to try and change consumer health styles before it's too late.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>20 Drug sales reps a week ?</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Drug Industry Business Models</category><dc:date>2010-03-09T06:04:45-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7aef25461f29781d8df9bd87d267481a-1011.html#unique-entry-id-1011</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7aef25461f29781d8df9bd87d267481a-1011.html#unique-entry-id-1011</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[How many times have you been waiting to see your doctor and observed a sales rep come in, drop off samples and leave.    It happens a lot more than you think especially now when physicians are growing more and more disappointed with drug company marketing and credibility.


There was a time when physicians were happy to meet and talk with drug reps but that was they had time to meet and talk with patients as well.    Now, too often, physicians have to see as many patients as possible to make their practices profitable.    Drug reps used to be able to add value but now it seems they come in programmed on what to say and what not to say and they are expected to have a peer to peer conversation with health care professionals.   


I am particularly amazed at drug companies who want marketing people to have "sales experience".    Why in the hell is that so valuable in today's marketing environment ?    The answer is that it's not; it just shows that the drug industry is very slow to change business models because it's easier to lay off people.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>&#x22;I will never go away&#x22;  a patient says but who set up this page and who was responsible for maintaining it ?</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Patient voices</category><dc:date>2010-03-08T10:19:37-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7b9e1c34ea292e4e9610257dafbb5009-1010.html#unique-entry-id-1010</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7b9e1c34ea292e4e9610257dafbb5009-1010.html#unique-entry-id-1010</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Maybe it was the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing although that is hard to believe because this page should have gone through some legal and regulatory sign off but like Mr Grant states "the damage is done".


An upset patient who has decided to challenge Sanofi on their


side effects.    Was she informed ?


On the Taxotere web page hair loss is listed as a side effect in the fair balance as;


Other common side effects from Taxotere&reg; include nausea, vomiting, hair loss, rash, infusion-site reactions, odd sensations (such as numbness, tingling, or burning) or weakness in the hands and feet, nail changes, muscle and/or bone pain, or excessive tearing.


In addition the label says the following;


Hair Loss &ndash; Loss of hair occurs in most patients taking Taxotere (including the hair on your head, underarm hair, pubic hair, eyebrows, and eyelashes).   Hair loss will begin after the first few treatments and varies from patient to patient.   Once you have completed all your treatments, hair generally grows back.


The key word here is generally.    While hair loss can be devastating for some women one has to wonder what is worse hair loss of having the drug become ineffective when it comes to treatment ?     Should the patients Oncologist have discussed the side effects in depth with the patient before she started treatment so she could decide if the treatment was worth the risk of losing her hair?    These are questions that are beyond the scope of the product but obviously the lesson here is that Sanofi should reexamine the warnings to include the fact that hair may not grow back after treatment and provide a statistical analysis of how many patients report this nasty side effect.


So who set up this page?    When did they set it up?    Who was responsible and why was this allowed to happen ?    Sanofi has a lot of questions to answer but this is why you need to both monitor social media and ensure that a process is followed to the letter when updating.     If in fact this was done by an employee than frankly that employee should be given his/her walking papers because this is an embarrassment to the brand and company.    It also may have steered a lot of patients away from a potentially life-saving product which in itself is just inexcusable.


Here is what Sanofi should do regarding this phony Facebook page:


1.   Conduct an internal audit immediately to find out who set this page up and why it was set up but more importantly ask "who was responsible to maintain this page?"


2.   Immediately notify the FDA that this page was set up and that a patient may have reported an adverse event on this page.   Sanofi is then going to need to notify the FDA as to what corrective action they are taking to prevent this from ever happening again.


3.    Either immediately terminate the page or go on record about the page.    Either way Sanofi needs to reach out to the patient to collect information about her treatment and the discussions she had with her Oncologist about the possibility of hair loss.    They need to ask "what could WE have done better to communicate the side effects ?"    The key here is not to accuse the patient but to reach out with transparency and a human touch to say "we're sorry what can we do to ensure that we communicate potential side effects to patients in a better way".


The fact that this page may have been set up by employees or alumni is troubling because in this age of over communication in a regulated industry there is just no excuse for this happening.     In the meantime every pharma company should be monitoring social media all the time because the risks of not doing so are just too great for the brand.


Thank you Bruce Grant for your insights there is a lesson here for every healthcare marketer.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Use of social media for health: A common sense approach</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Social Media</category><dc:date>2010-03-08T07:04:36-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/acd181e7e87810004709bb325a379f95-1009.html#unique-entry-id-1009</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/acd181e7e87810004709bb325a379f95-1009.html#unique-entry-id-1009</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Trust.    Before I have a relationship with you I need to trust you and right now consumers/patients don't trust pharma, medical device companies or the FDA.     In fact if you're a healthcare consumer right now, and who isn't, you're probably confused as hell about all the recent news around medications and health conditions.


The model for DTC marketing, via the Internet, has been pretty standard: develop a website and then purchase keywords to drive traffic to the website.    Determine success by the number of visits to the website.     This model of course is as broken as a used Yugo.     Sure people may be coming to your website but the problem is that they are also going to your competitors sites and listening to what others are saying about your brand/product via social media.     Bummer ha?


What to do?    Well, one of the fundamental objectives of marketing is to get in front of as many people as possible and via the Internet that is now possible via a great content marketing plan.   


"My God !    I was just getting a handle on Internet marketing and now there is something new to learn ?!"


The answer to that would be "you're damn right !".    The Internet as a communications channel is evolving and it's happening in Internet time not your matrix organization, tons of meetings and Power Point time-line.    Over 20 million people now use health insurer portals to manage their health, mobile application marketing is set to really explode as more and more people become smartphone users.    Why spend the money to try and get people to come to you, when they especially don't trust you, when you can take your information to where people are looking for and using health information?


Consumers & patients are angry and they have been telling marketers again and again "I am not a segment!"   In this era of social media monologue has given way to dialogue and a fundamental shift in culture is underway.


Content is the new democracy and consumers are ensuring that their voices are heard.   The reality is that DTC marketing will evolve and brands will humanize or consumers will move on without them redefining branding and marketing as they do.   Communication is powered by conversations and the best communicators are listening.    Oh, excuse me, I forgot you're waiting for the FDA to issue social media guidelines.    Well, consumers are not waiting and they are having the conversation around your brand whether you're there or not.    Remember today;


1.   Messages are not conversations 


2.   Targets and audiences are not people 


3.   There is no market for messages


If you think that is radical thinking then you're already in trouble.    A Facebook and Twitter page is not going to be the savior of your brand.    Hell Twitter only has 20 million people using the platform and 10% of Twitter users account for 85% of the traffic.    Do you really believe that people are going to friend your Twitter page when they don't trust you ?    What is the value you bring to the conversation?


The content on most product websites is bad, no, I mean really bad.    It does not talk to people as individuals and it is often difficult to understand.    Drug company marketers have not learned that you can have multiple home pages that people are driven to by the use of different keywords.    To them it's still about messages and message testing when consumers are saying "stop talking to me in messages!"


Maybe one day DTC marketing will become a driving force within pharma again.    Right now I believe two of the best DTC campaigns that being run are the Cymbalta spots (depression hurts) and the Lipitor spots (I didn't believe it could happen to me).    They are good because they evoke emotion and let people know that others around you can be affected by your health and that often there are no warning signs for some health problems.


Social media is not going to save DTC marketing a human approach just might but first they have to convince people that patients come ahead of profits.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Doctors only get about 10 percent of health care costs in their pockets&#x2c; but they control about 80 percent.</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Medical Costs Physicians   #in</category><dc:date>2010-03-05T05:31:18-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/dc012279ed49408412ca13d6f669242b-1008.html#unique-entry-id-1008</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/dc012279ed49408412ca13d6f669242b-1008.html#unique-entry-id-1008</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Dr.   Brody points out that certain doctors&rsquo; groups have gone so far as to make their support for reform contingent on promises that their own income would remain unaffected.   &ldquo;If physicians seized the moral high ground,&rdquo; Dr.   Brody writes in his editorial, &ldquo;we just might astonish enough other people to change the entire reform debate for the better.&rdquo;


Here are some key points Dr Brody makes from an article in this morning's Times called "The Doctors Failure To Cut Costs".  


-But doctors have a second moral duty: they have an obligation to the general public to be prudent stewards of scarce resources.   Doctors only get about 10 percent of health care costs in their pockets, but they control about 80 percent.   That isn&rsquo;t our money &mdash; it&rsquo;s someone else&rsquo;s &mdash; and the public has entrusted us to spend it as wisely as possible.


-The reason that the public gave us (doctors)  so much regard, trusted us, was because they saw us as willing to make that moral commitment to put the patient first.   If we ever retreat from that commitment, we lose so much.   I don&rsquo;t even want to think what that would be like.


-We have an American public that generally believes more is better.   And rather than giving up bad habits, exercising and eating right, they would rather believe that the answer to health is in high technology.


While Dr Brody has a strong opinion I believe that he is missing some important points.    For example, earlier this week the Times had an article citing a physician who said his fixed monthly costs for operating his practice were $60,000 and going up.    This means that the first of the month he is already in the red until he can see enough patients to start making money.  


The second point that I believe is relevant to this discussion is the "practicing safe medicine".    By that I mean ordering tests that the patient might not need to protect the physician from future litigation should the patient get sick and decide to sue.    There is no doubt that malpractice premiums are outrageous right now but that's because the legal system is using medicine as a great source of income.    Patients should have the right to sue physicians and drug/medical device companies when there is proof that their health was not at the forefront of medical decisions but today even with new technology medicine is not a "guaranteed science".


I believe that the majority of physicians put patient health first and want to practice better medicine but the reality is that there business models require them to use the Wal*Mart approach to medicine and see as many people as possible to make ends meet.    Let's hope health reform enables physicians to spend quality time with patients so they can focus on listening which is becoming a very important need for patients today. 


Here is a link to the article in the Times


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>FDA: Getting tough with everyone</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>FDA Letters</category><dc:date>2010-03-04T09:48:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/FDA%20and%20claims.html#unique-entry-id-1007</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/FDA%20and%20claims.html#unique-entry-id-1007</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[For too long food manufacturers like POM Wonderful have been trying to con the American public with unsubstantiated claims.    In the case of POM pomegranate juice the agency said that the company&rsquo;s Web site, which is listed on its bottles, carried misleading claims that the juice could prevent or cure diseases like hypertension, diabetes and cancer.    Such claims are not allowed on food products and would require that the juice be treated, in regulatory terms, as a drug, according to the letter sent to the company.    I have long been saying that what  the POM Wonderful marketing people are doing is nothing short of criminal for quite a while so it's good to see that FDA is finally taking action.


Several products were singled out for labels that boasted prominently they contained no trans fat, even though they had high levels of saturated fat which could cause a wealth of health problems.     You can be sure that the FDA is also going to go after drug and medical device companies if they feel that people made decisions based on what was best for sales not patients & consumers.


I personally welcome this new approach by the FDA.    We tried to let drug companies police themselves and for the most part it didn't work.    Food manufacturers too have tried to say their products are healthy even though they may contain lots of sugar and salt.    With a new tougher FDA we can hope that the industries will "get the message" and that products like POM Wonderful finally get taken to tasks for unsubstantiated claims.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Time for medical device manfufacturers to be held to same standards as pharma</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Medical Devices   #in</category><dc:date>2010-03-03T16:21:44-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4630289c9c1d7e9a57fb5c52dc292c4f-1006.html#unique-entry-id-1006</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4630289c9c1d7e9a57fb5c52dc292c4f-1006.html#unique-entry-id-1006</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the Wall Street Journal: 


Some 375,000 adults with Type 1 diabetes used pumps in 2007 and there were nearly 17,000 reports of health problems over the three years ended in 2009, according to the regulators.   Makers are required to report problems potentially connected with devices to the FDA.

Such reports don&rsquo;t mean there is necessarily something wrong with a device or that it caused harm, but FDA reviewers found many reports &ldquo;have not been thoroughly investigated and evaluated by manufacturers in determining causality and device failure,&rdquo; according to the FDA.   Of 310 deaths examined, for example, it said &ldquo;the device problem was unknown and limited details of the event were provided&rdquo; in 225 of the death reports.


"Unknown?"    Details not provided ?     Here we are dealing with an Avandia scare that is not based on scientific facts and 310 people die when using insulin pumps and the device problems are unknown ?   


The Supreme Court protected the makers of medical devices that have passed rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm.    The court ruled 8 to 1 against the estate of a New York man who was seriously injured when a balloon catheter manufactured by Medtronic burst during an angioplasty in 1996.   Charles Riegel, who died three years ago, and his wife sued under New York law, alleging that the device's design was faulty and its labeling deficient.    But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said federal law preempts the imposition of liability under state laws for devices that have undergone the Food and Drug Administration's pre-market approval process, the most rigorous of the FDA's testing procedures.   While medical device makers rejoiced at this ruling it obviously is not in the best interests of consumers and patients.


On top of all this Some of the nation&rsquo;s leading orthopedic surgeons have reduced or stopped use of a popular category of artificial hips amid concerns that the devices are causing severe tissue and bone damage in some patients, often requiring replacement surgery within a year or two.    The cause and the scope of the problem are not clear.   But studies in recent years indicate that in some cases the devices can quickly begin to wear, generating high volumes of metallic debris that is absorbed into a patient&rsquo;s body.   That situation can touch off inflammatory reactions that cause pain in the groin, death of tissue in the hip joint and loss of surrounding bone.    Doctors at leading orthopedic centers like Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and the Mayo Clinic in Minneapolis say they have treated a number of patients over the last year with problems related to the metal debris.


Remember just a few years ago when a slew of medical device companies were caught giving physicians rebates and other incentives to use their products forcing some to post lists of physicians who had received payments in the hundreds of thousand of dollars ?    How would you feel if, after a hip replacement, you were told that you may have to have the device replaced ?     What if you purchased an insulin pump for your child and it malfunctioned ?


At the very least fair balance for ALL medical devices needs to be revisited especially the risks and placement of fair balance on websites and all sales materials.    People need to know the risks and the FDA needs to turn its attention more to medical device companies who feel that they can do whatever they want because of a flawed Supreme Court ruling.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Why are more people going online for health information ?  Just look at the headlines</title><dc:creator>Richard Meyer richardameyer@me.com</dc:creator><category>Online health information</category><dc:date>2010-03-03T10:34:44-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d5b5c5a586b9021ddd18e5f548d71a2c-1005.html#unique-entry-id-1005</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d5b5c5a586b9021ddd18e5f548d71a2c-1005.html#unique-entry-id-1005</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to Pew Internet the overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspapers, radio, and national newspapers.   Some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day.   Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day.   If this is true you're probably one confused consumer right now.


In the past month there have been stories about Fish Oil, Aspirin, Avandia, Asthma & Prostrate screening just to name a few.    Who the hell are consumers supposed to believe and where can they go to get the information as it pertains to them ?    The FDA website could be a great resource but it has the usability of trying to navigate a government system.    The end result is that more and more consumers are spending more and more time trying to make sense out of all the conflicting news reports.


On the Internet everyone is an editor, thanks in part to social media.    This means that people can say anything they want when it comes expressing their views on health, drugs and physicians.    Research does suggest that people are using social media for health but it also suggests that they view social media health content as "personal opinions" which means they will either take it with a grain of salt or will take a deeper dive into the information to sort out credibility issues.


One thing is for certain right now and that is that health information that comes out today may not be valid tomorrow, next week or next month.    Consumers and patients are confused and it seems the only way to get to the bottom line is to go online and search out the truth wherever it is.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=7ae28743-6085-49fd-8211-273a8d3ef1b8&amp;type=website&amp;style=rotate"></script>]]></content:encoded></item></channel>
</rss>