Markets

Drugs on Twitter: Big Pharma Lobbies for New Rules in Social Media

By Jim Edwards

Updated on: March 10, 2010 / 12:54 PM EST / MoneyWatch

Drug companies have weighed in on the FDA's review of rules for pharma social media and Web advertising and -- surprise! -- their suggestions for new regulations are almost entirely self-serving.

The deadline for public comments closed Feb. 28. The FDA will now mull them and come up with new rules, probably in late 2010 at the earliest. A review of drug company suggestions to the FDA shows that they're almost unanimous in wanting the FDA to write new laws, just as long as those laws make it easier for drug companies to reach consumers on the Web. (All the comments can be read at Regulations.gov; enter "FDA-2009-N-0441-0001" into the "Enter Keyword or ID" search field).

Here are some highlights from their positions:

PhRMA The drug company lobbyist group wants the FDA to adopt a "universal symbol" for small-space media (such as Twitter or Facebook status updates) that would link directly to side effect information. The FDA requires drug companies to warn consumers about drug risks, but new media is often so truncated that the risks won't fit. On its face, PhRMA's suggestion makes sense -- except that you can easily see how repeated exposure to the symbol would eventually render it "invisible" to consumers, who would then ignore the warnings the FDA wants them to hear.

Pfizer (PFE)

Pfizer's submission was among the least self-serving of the major drug companies. It urged few specific recommendations in favor of an overall argument that whatever the FDA does, it must do something, because the industry needs a rulemaking in order to thrive in digital media.

Google (GOOG)

Google wants the FDA to set "formatting standards" for drug ads. Its was possibly the most technocratic submission from a company. Of course, if the FDA agrees to set standards for online search ads as Google requests, it would amount to a full-employment act for Google Ads.

Bayer (BAY)

Bayer also urged that "limited space formats" for advertising be adopted. It also asked that companies only be held responsible for content in media they actually control.

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)

J&J also asked that companies not be held responsible for user comments even on bulletin boards they do not control. The company also made one of the more useful suggestions to the FDA: That in drug company advertising, companies should be required to provide a standard link for adverse event reporting. Currently, there are no standards for monitoring drugs-gone-wrong online.

Edelman This PR firm urged the opposite of J&J: That companies should have responsibility for user-generated content on their own sites. In one sense, that sounds like a gimme for Edelman, which would no doubt offer companies UGC content monitoring services.

Sanofi-Aventis (SNY)

Sanofi urged that companies not be held responsible for comments by bloggers who have been given information packets by drug companies, in the event those bloggers say something wrong or "off-label." That sounds reasonable at first glance -- except that if adopted it would allow drug companies to flood the blogosphere with technically compliant information in the sure knowledge that some "friendly" bloggers would go off the reservation to promote the drugs (i.e., exactly how company-funded continuing medical education works with doctor seminars right now.)

Center for Digital Democracy This privacy pressure group called for an FDA probe of "behavioral targeting," the practice of identifying web users via their searches and clicks.

AstraZeneca (AZN)

The FDA must create "categories" for company-controlled and third-party information on the Web, so that companies know which rules would apply where, AZ suggested.

Merck (MRK)

Merck believes companies should only have to report adverse events recorded on company-controlled media, not on third party media.

Related: