Drug industry to fight New Zealand's move to ban direct to consumer advertising
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Moves by New Zealand's health minister, Annette King, to end advertising directly to consumers later this year by "harmonising" with Australian government standards has drawn opposition from the drug industry.
In December 2003 New Zealand and Australia signed a treaty to establish a single bi-national agency to regulate medicines, medical devices, and complementary health products on 1 July 2005 (2004;328:68). The text of the treaty was tabled in both parliaments in late March and is subject to review by parliamentary committees. Supporting documentation identified direct to consumer advertising as one of the differences where efficiencies could be made.
The week after the treaty was signed the New Zealand cabinet discussed a submission from Ms King to ban direct to consumer advertising and resolved that she should discuss the adoption of "harmonised" standards with Australia. The adoption of the Australian standards would bring direct to consumer advertising to an end in New Zealand but would permit unbranded material promoting disease awareness.
Ms King met with her Australian counterpart, Trish Worth, at the Australian Healthcare Ministers Conference in Canberra last week but declined to comment on the outcome of the discussions. However, three weeks ago she told New Zealand Doctor magazine that "the sooner we can do it the better."
The chief executive officer of the Researched Medicines Industry Association of New Zealand, Lesley Clarke, insists that harmonisation should not mean a ban on direct to consumer advertising. "There was never ever an undertaking as part of harmonising standards that we necessarily had to have exactly the same regime as Australia at all," she said.
Ms King told the magazine that she expected that there "will be a huge campaign against me by very powerful and very well heeled pharmaceutical companies" as a result of a ban. The drug industry, she said, may fund political parties in next year's election. "Tobacco companies in America support politicians, and there are senators and congressmen supported by pharmaceutical companies," she said.
Ms Clarke denied that companies funded political parties. "She is making statements like that without a shred of evidence . . . we have never operated like that in New Zealand," she said. Under New Zealand law donors to political donors are required to disclose only contributions over $NZ10 000 (?530; $6250; �5280).
To some public health doctors New Zealand's plans to end direct to consumer advertising do not go far enough. Professor Les Toop, head of the department of public health and general practice at Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, would prefer a ban on both direct to consumer and disease awareness campaigns.
"If you leave even a small chink in your regulations then you have got to have a strong enforcement capacity with some decent penalties to stop people from keeping on pushing the envelope. It is easier to have a complete ban on promotion because then they have either broken the law or they haven't," he said.(Canberra Bob Burton)
In December 2003 New Zealand and Australia signed a treaty to establish a single bi-national agency to regulate medicines, medical devices, and complementary health products on 1 July 2005 (2004;328:68). The text of the treaty was tabled in both parliaments in late March and is subject to review by parliamentary committees. Supporting documentation identified direct to consumer advertising as one of the differences where efficiencies could be made.
The week after the treaty was signed the New Zealand cabinet discussed a submission from Ms King to ban direct to consumer advertising and resolved that she should discuss the adoption of "harmonised" standards with Australia. The adoption of the Australian standards would bring direct to consumer advertising to an end in New Zealand but would permit unbranded material promoting disease awareness.
Ms King met with her Australian counterpart, Trish Worth, at the Australian Healthcare Ministers Conference in Canberra last week but declined to comment on the outcome of the discussions. However, three weeks ago she told New Zealand Doctor magazine that "the sooner we can do it the better."
The chief executive officer of the Researched Medicines Industry Association of New Zealand, Lesley Clarke, insists that harmonisation should not mean a ban on direct to consumer advertising. "There was never ever an undertaking as part of harmonising standards that we necessarily had to have exactly the same regime as Australia at all," she said.
Ms King told the magazine that she expected that there "will be a huge campaign against me by very powerful and very well heeled pharmaceutical companies" as a result of a ban. The drug industry, she said, may fund political parties in next year's election. "Tobacco companies in America support politicians, and there are senators and congressmen supported by pharmaceutical companies," she said.
Ms Clarke denied that companies funded political parties. "She is making statements like that without a shred of evidence . . . we have never operated like that in New Zealand," she said. Under New Zealand law donors to political donors are required to disclose only contributions over $NZ10 000 (?530; $6250; �5280).
To some public health doctors New Zealand's plans to end direct to consumer advertising do not go far enough. Professor Les Toop, head of the department of public health and general practice at Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, would prefer a ban on both direct to consumer and disease awareness campaigns.
"If you leave even a small chink in your regulations then you have got to have a strong enforcement capacity with some decent penalties to stop people from keeping on pushing the envelope. It is easier to have a complete ban on promotion because then they have either broken the law or they haven't," he said.(Canberra Bob Burton)