Television advertisements promoting lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies are raising significant public health concerns, according to new research from Sylvia Hristakeva, an assistant professor at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business. These ads, which target individuals who have experienced adverse side effects from medications, can inadvertently deter patients from using drugs that may be essential for their health.
Hristakeva’s study, titled “Bad-drug Ads or Killer Ads: The Effects of Drug Injury Advertising on Public Health,” was published on October 28, 2023, in the journal Management Science. The research highlights the unintended consequences of direct-to-consumer legal advertisements that focus on the risks associated with certain medications. While they aim to attract clients for law firms, these commercials are viewed by a broader audience, including patients who are benefiting from the same drugs.
The impact of these advertisements is particularly evident in the context of anticoagulants, which are critical in reducing the risk of blood clots and strokes—conditions that account for the fifth-leading cause of death in the United States. The first of these blood thinners, Warfarin, has been in use since 1953, while newer non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) like Pradaxa, Xarelto, and Eliquis entered the market between 2010 and 2012 and have faced numerous drug-injury lawsuits.
Hristakeva’s research utilized data from Medicare covering the years 2015 to 2019, alongside advertising information from the litigation tracking firm X Ante. She discovered a concerning correlation between the volume of drug injury advertisements and changes in prescription behavior. Specifically, a mere $0.19 increase in per capita ad spending was associated with a 2.6% decrease in NOAC prescription fills. This effect mirrors the influence of conventional pharmaceutical advertisements that promote drug benefits, but in reverse.
The study also revealed alarming statistics regarding hospitalizations. In areas where a significant number of residents are over the age of 65, a similar increase in ad spending led to a 5.76% rise in hospitalizations related to anticoagulant diagnoses. This translates to an estimated additional 3,400 inpatient visits annually, costing up to $68 million in hospitalization expenses for stroke patients alone, based on an average cost of $20,000 per visit. Hristakeva cautioned that these figures do not include related long-term costs such as follow-up treatments or lost income.
In light of these findings, Hristakeva advocates for increased regulation of legal advertising. Recent efforts in states such as Texas and Tennessee aim to enhance transparency, requiring that legal solicitations clearly state they are not government alerts and include warnings advising patients not to discontinue medications without consulting a healthcare provider.
Federal regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), have begun to acknowledge the issue, issuing warning letters to law firms about potentially misleading advertisements. Hristakeva emphasized that the reach of these advertisements extends beyond those who have suffered adverse effects; they also impact the decisions of patients who have not experienced any harm, thereby posing real risks to public health.
Beyond regulatory measures, Hristakeva suggests the need for public health initiatives. Providing patients and healthcare professionals with accurate, evidence-based information could help mitigate the unintended consequences of these advertisements. The researcher’s work has received support from the National Science Foundation and the Morrison Center for Marketing and Data Analytics at the University of California, Los Angeles.
As the debate continues over the implications of drug-related injury advertisements, Hristakeva’s findings underscore the necessity for a balanced approach that protects public health while ensuring that patients can make informed decisions about their treatment options.
