Tag Archives: pharma

The Patient/Corporate Paradigm.

I read an interesting article in the New York Times on my flight back to Baltimore yesterday:

An MS Drug Takes a Feisty Approach Aimed at Younger Patients

The article talks about the new oral drug to treat Multiple Sclerosis made by Novartis. Or specifically, their advertising for the drug, which features actual patients! Including some who use social media. From the article, quoting Dagmar Rosa-Bjorkeson, head of Novartis’s multiple sclerosis unit.:

The campaign’s upbeat tone comes, Ms. Rosa-Bjorkeson said, from sentiments patients expressed on blogs and other forms of social media where “people were saying that ‘this disease is not going to stop me.’ ”

“Those were spirited words, with an edginess and power to them that wound up giving the campaign a bolder tone,” she said.

Okay, I’m letting that sink in for a minute…

Now, from another part of the article:

Featuring real patients “is a contemporary way to get patients to recognize their symptoms and to be more in control,” said Jeff Rothstein, a partner at Cult Health, a Cult360 ad agency. “But pharma ads have to tread a fine line so they are not seen as promoting the idea that patients should just ask the doctor to write a prescription for the drug.”

These two snippets really have me thinking about something, and I want you to think about it too if you’re out there blogging or tweeting or instagraming (is that a word?) or anything else in social media about your diabetes.

If you were asked to participate in a campaign like this, would you? Don’t forget, this is a drug and not new technology we’re talking about here. What about new technology? Would you say yes to helping to promote technology and no to helping to promote a new drug? Vice versa?

What about this: what if you were asked to participate in corporate advertising and you said no. Would you worry that companies might want to back away from engaging with patients as a result? If you did worry about that, might the idea of that change your mind?

Even though I’ve only been doing this for (almost) a year, I’m increasingly aware that we all walk a fine line when it comes to these kinds of issues (by the way, I’ve never been approached about anything like this). A finer line, perhaps, than I had considered before. And you can bet that the line will get finer and finer as the years go on.

I’m not making a judgment. I have an opinion, but I don’t want to give it here right now because I want you to think about it yourself. Think about what it might be like to participate in advertising like this, or decline to participate. Then think about the implications. Then think about the good, and possibly bad things that can happen as a result of your decision.

What would you do? How would you handle these kinds of questions? However you feel, don’t keep it to yourself. It is important to share your views. If you’re so inclined, please do so below or post something about it on your space in the social media landscape. Then come back and leave a link to it or tell me about it. I’d love to read your opinion.
 
 
 

Just Wondering.

I received an incentive from my prescription plan this weekend. Go ahead and read it… I’ll still be here, humming America the Beautiful.

You’re back? Great.

So nice of the Medco/Express Scripts conglomeration to make this offer to me (by the way, I ordered another Accu-Chek Nano and received it last week– great timing). I’m sure they’re getting incentives of their own from Roche, makers of the Accu-Chek, and Johnson & Johnson, makers of the One Touch. That’s the way business works.

Maybe I’m overly sensitive these days (it’s possible), but I can’t help thinking about the millions out there to whom a free meter and lower-cost test strips might mean the difference between life and… well, you know. Some of those millions are right here in the United States. Others are living in third world squalor, where every day is a struggle for survival in so many ways.

Why are they less deserving than I am?

These companies have their own humanitarian efforts, of course:

Johnson & Johnson
http://www.jnj.com/connect/caring/corporate-giving/

Roche
http://www.roche.com/responsibility/society/humanitarian_aid.htm
For additional fun reading (NOT), click on the Drug Donation Policy link on this page.

I don’t want to be too critical of these companies. It’s always hard to say “Yes, we will give to this, but not to that”. Someone is going to be unhappy. As far as I can tell, both of these companies have resources dedicated to giving in a smart and measurable way to those who need help.

I guess all I’m saying is that if I have to pay 20 or 30 or 50 dollars to get my meter, and a portion of that money can then be used help get meters and test strips, or insulin and syringes, or whatever else to people who desperately need it, what’s wrong with that? And before you say “If you feel that way, why don’t you just donate the money directly”, I’m already doing that. I’m talking about doing something on top of that.

Speaking just for myself: If I have the choice between meter A with an offer like that above, or meter B that comes with a cost, but part of that cost is dedicated to helping others in need, I’m probably going to go with meter B. I’ll even seek out that meter in the vetting process because of the giving. But I’m funny that way.

I’m just wondering… would you make a choice like that? Do you wonder about fairness too?
 
 
 

%d bloggers like this: