Doctors have an idea that could save a ton of money: No more drug ads.

It'll take an act of Congress to ban the practice, but the AMA is on board.

Have you ever thought about how weird it is that drug companies can advertise something you can't even buy without a prescription?

I always thought the process was supposed to be: feel sick, go to the doctor, explain my symptoms, get diagnosed by a professional, and if needed, get a prescription for a drug based on what's wrong with you.

But no, these commercials always end with the same refrain: "Ask your doctor if [our product] is right for you."


That can't be how it's supposed to work, right?

"I saw an ad that told me I should ask you if this medication is right for me, Dr. Stockphotoman." Image via iStock.

The American Medical Association announced it also thinks there's something weird about those ads.

"Today's vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices," AMA board chair-elect Patrice Harris said in November. "Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."

And while the amount of money these companies spend marketing and selling their products to doctors is also a big concern, this is a pretty big deal, too.

There are only two countries in the world that allow drug manufacturers to advertise prescription drugs direct to consumers: the United States and New Zealand. And after this announcement, the AMA hopes that number drops by half.

Drug manufacturers spend $4.5 billion on advertising to consumers each year, up 30% from just two years ago.

And $1.1 billion of that ad money in 2014 was spent by a single company, Pfizer, in promoting drugs like Lyrica, Viagara, Celebrex, and Chantix.

In addition to being a really poor way of storing medication, this just can't be sanitary. Buy a wallet, please. Image via iStock.

A strong majority of the public believes prescription pricing is a top health care issue.

An October report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 77% of those polled viewed "Making sure that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions are affordable to those who need them" as a top health care priority. The next most pressing issue, supported by 63% of individuals was urging the government to take action to lower prescription drug prices.

"Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."

And that's what the AMA's resolution hopes to address: the skyrocketing cost of drugs.

"In the past few years, prices on generic and brand-name prescription drugs have steadily risen and experienced a 4.7% spike in 2015, according to the Altarum Institute Center for Sustainable Health Spending," reads AMA's press release.

"I take a couple uppers. I down a couple downers But nothing compares to these blue and yellow purple pills." Image via iStock.

But if companies don't advertise, how will people know what to ask for? By trusting our doctors.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is not in favor of AMA's resolution.

A representative tells Bloomberg, "Providing scientifically accurate information to patients so that they are better informed about their health care and treatment options is the goal of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Research shows that accurate information about disease and treatment options makes patients and doctors better partners."

And that sort of makes sense, right? But that's kind of the problem. The reason we go into doctors' offices is to have our symptoms diagnosed and treated. When we go in with a diagnosis already in mind (and with a brand name treatment to go with it), we're effectively sidestepping the whole point of having doctors.

I want to live in the world where I go to the doctor, not wait for an ad to tell me about a solution for a problem I didn't know I had. I want to live in a world where I can trust my doctor, not rely on self-diagnosis through marketing dollars. The whole thing is a distraction.

Doing research-y things. Image via iStock.

Unfortunately, the AMA's decision doesn't actually change ... well ... anything. That's up to Congress.

And Congress has forces pushing on all sides of this issue. The most common force? Cold hard cash. That's capitalism for you.

In 2014, the AMA, which represents around 235,000 doctors and medical students, spent $19.7 million lobbying Congress. On the other side of this, PhRMA spent $16.6 million on lobbying in 2014.

A medical technical assistant studies the influenza virus in 2009. Photo by Carsten Koall/Getty Images.

For better care, we need to get rid of the distraction advertising plays in the process of getting diagnosed.

You can start by contacting your member of Congress and asking about their position on the AMA's recent resolution.

Heroes
Youtube

Should a man lose his home because the grass in his yard grew higher than 10 inches? The city of Dunedin, Florida seems to think so.

According to the Institute of Justice, which is representing Jim Ficken, he had a very good reason for not mowing his lawn – and tried to rectify the situation as best he could.

In 2014, Jim's mom became ill and he visited her often in South Carolina to help her out. When he was away, his grass grew too long and he was cited by a code office; he cut the grass and wasn't fined.

France has started forcing supermarkets to donate food instead of throwing it away.

But several years later, this one infraction would come back to haunt him after he left to take care of him's mom's affairs after she died. The arrangements he made to have his grass cut fell through (his friend who he asked to help him out passed away unexpectedly) and that set off a chain reaction that may result in him losing his home.

The 69-year-old retiree now faces a $29,833.50 fine plus interest. Watch the video to find out just what Jim is having to deal with.

Mow Your Lawn or Lose Your House! www.youtube.com

Cities

The world officially loves Michelle Obama.

The former first lady has overtaken the number one spot in a poll of the world's most admired women. Conducted by online research firm YouGov, the study uses international polling tools to survey people in countries around the world about who they most admire.

In the men's category, Bill Gates took the top spot, followed by Barack Obama and Jackie Chan.

In the women's category, Michelle Obama came first, followed by Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie. Obama pushed Jolie out of the number one spot she claimed last year.

Unsurprising, really, because what's not to love about Michelle Obama? She is smart, kind, funny, accomplished, a great dancer, a devoted wife and mother, and an all-around, genuinely good person.

She has remained dignified and strong in the face of rabid masses of so-called Americans who spent eight years and beyond insisting that she's a man disguised as a woman. She's endured non-stop racist memes and terrifying threats to her family. She has received far more than her fair share of cruelty, and always takes the high road. She's the one who coined, "When they go low, we go high," after all.

She came from humble beginnings and remains down to earth despite becoming a familiar face around the world. She's not much older than me, but I still want to be like Michelle Obama when I grow up.

Her memoir, Becoming, may end up being the best-selling memoir of all time, having already sold 10 million copies—a clear sign that people can't get enough Michelle, because there's no such thing as too much Michelle.

Don't like Michelle Obama? Don't care. Those of us who love her will fly our MO flags high and without apology, paying no mind to folks with cold, dead hearts who don't know a gem of a human being when they see one. There is nothing any hater can say or do to make us admire this undeniably admirable woman any less.

When it seems like the world has lost its mind—which is how it feels most days these days—I'm just going to keep coming back to this study as evidence that hope for humanity is not lost.

Here. Enjoy some real-life Michelle on Jimmy Kimmel. (GAH. WHY IS SHE SO CUTE AND AWESOME. I can't even handle it.)

Michelle & Barack Obama are Boring Now www.youtube.com

Most Shared
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

The world is dark and full of terrors, but every once in a while it graces us with something to warm our icy-cold hearts. And that is what we have today, with a single dad who went viral on Twitter after his daughter posted the photos he sent her when trying to pick out and outfit for his date. You love to see it.




After seeing these heartwarming pics, people on Twitter started suggesting this adorable man date their moms. It was essentially a mom and date matchmaking frenzy.

Keep Reading Show less
Family