A study commissioned by the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare and Eli Lilly and Company found that “even when patients were responding well to their prescribed antipsychotic treatment, many requested a medication change because these drugs are featured in law firm advertisements. Other patients stopped taking their medication, often without telling their psychiatrist, for the same reason.”
“Many of our patients already struggle with accepting their illness and staying on their prescribed treatment, and now they are experiencing new levels of fear due to the increasing incidence of these jarring advertisements,” said Dr. Ralph Aquila, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons; director, residential community services, St Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY. “This irresponsible advertising is hindering the progress of therapy for many of these patients and disrupting the important relationship between them and their healthcare providers. Plaintiffs attorneys need to consider the consequences that these advertisements may have on patients.”
Twenty-six percent of relapses led to suicide attempts. “Thirty-one percent [of psychiatrists] found patient resistance to starting medication due to concerns generated by law firm advertisements challenging, while 28% are concerned about malpractice risk if they prescribe a drug that’s the focus of product liability litigation.” (Cross-posted from Point of Law)
4 Comments
“Plaintiffs attorneys need to consider the consequences that these advertisements may have on patients.”
Sounds like the basis of a great class action lawsuit:
Could this be pharma and health care professionals, and their respective insurers, laying the keel for a well calculated response to increased prod. liability and med/mal costs? After all, companies such as Lilly are in business to yield profit/ROI. This could be groundwork for reducing liability costs, thus a better ROI for investors.
Disclosure: I own Lilly shares.
If I think this through, I foresee a possible showdown between 1st Amnd. rights (commercial speech of plaintiffs’ attys) and public health.
The introduction of anti-psychotic drugs liberated many from indefinite confinement in mental institutions. The drugs are a godsend.
I am glad that Todd Rogers invested in a company that makes these drugs, but I just do not understand his sinister references to ROI. Shouldn’t we all focus on a profession, the Plaintiff Bar, that appeals to the paranoia of mentally ill people. Shame on them!
Bill.
That reference was not at all sinister. I fully support Rx and healthcare companies and their respective pursuit of large profits, if so deserved. That they can provide better living through chemistry and produce profit for the shareholders is the epitome of capitalism, and I’m 100% behind that. That the plaintiff’s bar might be stiffled in their marketing message because it may threaten public health is all the sweeter.