FDA on Pharma Ads 2.0

This week the Food and Drug Administration is holding hearings on the promotional use of social media by the pharmaceutical industry. Consumers, advertisers and the health care industry are anxious to know how FDA will advise drug companies on harnessing the viral power of social networking while protecting consumers from bogus medical advice.

Susannah Fox, an associate director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project and principal author of the project's reports about online health, blogged on Sunday:

Health seekers might be forgiven if they give up what at times is a search for a needle in a haystack. A [2006] study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finds that a tiny percentage of health sites display the source and date of the information on their pages. . . . Of the 102 Web sites reviewed for the report, none met all six of the disclosure criteria and only six complied with more than three criteria. Just 4 percent of "frequently visited" health Web sites disclosed the source of the information on their pages and 2 percent disclosed how the content is updated. Less-popular health sites fared even worse: 0.3 percent of these sites listed their content's source and only 0.1 percent disclosed how the content is updated.

Are we really going back to the era of scolding patients for not checking the source and date of health information they find online? If so, it's my duty as the purveyor of that ammunition data point to speak up. To everyone who is providing insights to the FDA: Tell the whole story. Help the FDA see not only the reality of today's information marketplace, but tomorrow's, which is increasingly mobile and social.

One of the most critical questions that will be discussed at the hearings is: What parameters should apply to the posting of corrective information on Web sites controlled by third parties?

Jonathan Richman, who will speak at the hearings as director of business development for digital marketing agency Bridge Worldwide, blogged that he plans to answer:

The current rules, actually the lack of them, is making many companies reluctant to participate in discussions online. What is happening in many of these discussions is people are sharing inaccurate and sometimes dangerous medical advice with one another. Not on purpose, but that's the net result. Pharma companies would welcome the chance to correct some of this misinformation (in an appropriate manner), but feel they can't under the current rules. My question is this: If the FDA is charged with protecting the public health, is allowing companies to fix incorrect medical information online more dangerous than doing nothing? I'd argue that the "risk" of having companies attempt to correct this information is FAR less than the risk posed by the inaccurate information itself.