Pharma brands on social media

Whether this is right or wrong is not the question. The question is, can we stop it? Instead of trying to stop it, we should create a contemporary code to harness the positivity of the network.

Over the last few years, social media platforms provided a medium for products to reach out to customers in a more direct but relevant manner. Since it depended on the preferences of customers, it was also more targeted and more effective than broadcasting over TV, or in newspapers, for example.

Pharma and healthcare brands were no exception. Of late, there have been Twitter conversations about why it isn’t right for pharma and device brands to be ‘advertised’ on social media. The obvious reason is because HCPs (Health Care Practitioners) are barred from advertising or endorsing medical products under the IMCR – Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002, and the UCPMP – Uniform Code on Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices.

However, I think it indicates a change in the way info is shared and a natural evolution, especially considering the changes every industry has been through in the recent past? I think technology evolves faster than society can keep up. In this era of ‘Digital Darwinism’, we must acknowledge that the way in which communication and information is shared, has changed.

So instead of criticising people for using new media and platforms to create more awareness, I think we must focus on examining the laws and throwing out what is old and irrelevant. We must govern for the future, not for the past.

It is my firm belief that the law needs to be upgraded. As I wrote earlier, I think we must acknowledge that the laws in practice were not made for a world of AI, software and social networks, or, a digital-first world. Today, there are platforms accessible to anyone to publish content. It is a ‘creators economy’. Citizen journalism is accepted by the media world, home chefs are beating restaurants in popularity, and freelance singers give established ones a run for their money. Alcohol, a category that is banned from advertising, is all over social media using paid influencers.

I think the medical world should also acknowledge that people have very easy access to information and networks. They seek out people like them to discuss medical matters. They discuss diagnoses, rate doctors and compare prescriptions. They talk openly about medicines, their effects and adverse reactions while advising others on what to take and what to stay away from.

Specific to medicines, social platforms are full of pharma people posting photographs of drug launches, patients asking questions about medicines they have been prescribed and doctors either ridiculing drug names or talking about beneficial effects of drugs they used.

Doctors, hospitals and diagnostic labs are user-rated, information on disease, symptoms, treatment is easily available and conversations around medicines and its availability is easily accessible. In such a situation, does it make sense to stick with an archaic law, or is it better to discuss how to update it?

At a personal level, I do not think there's anything wrong with a doctor endorsing a particular product that perhaps can save lives. I think the sharing of accurate and important information is very important. Medical or otherwise, the problem we deal with in this age is of fake news. As long as the news is authentic, it is a good thing.

The Mangalore doctor runs a community of HCPs in rural India who use modern technologies to save the lives of heart patients. It is yeoman service in a country that lacks access to modern medicine seven decades after Independence. He uses social media extensively to talk about his work and I am sure he has a dedicated audience of doctors and patients who follow his advice.

The issue of contention here could be about paid promotion. In case the doctor is paid, he should acknowledge it. Failure to do so brings his credibility to question. Again this is a different issue and not about whether he should post about his practice online.

He is definitely not the only one. There is #medtwitter on which so many doctors discuss their business openly. Although #medtwitter is meant for medical professionals, it definitely doesn’t stop others from accessing it.

Whether this is right or wrong is not the question. The question is, can we stop it? Should we stop it? I don’t think so. I think instead of trying to stop them from doing it, we should create a contemporary regulatory framework where the power of this network is harnessed.

Worries about self-medication and the dangers thereof are well-meaning but merely arguments of convenience. In India you can routinely get medicines at pharmacies without a prescription. A large number of people consult chemists for ‘routine’ illnesses. The people who advise them aren’t trained pharmacists.

Most people in India try out home remedies, alternative therapies and the advice of well-meaning relatives many times before finally consulting a doctor. This isn’t very different from following WhatsApp forwards. Drugs prescribed by registered medical practitioners can lead to death due to side effects. India doesn’t have a formal pharmacovigilance system to record all this. So the protection the law offers, is debatable anyway.

Conversations on social media from accredited doctors maybe a better option. Regulations must evolve to protect from deep fakes or other types of false news. Data privacy, encryption, security and authenticity of information needs to be protected. The old laws aren’t geared to do any of this.