Kennedy made a call at a Trump rally in November for a significant change in pharmaceutical industry regulations. He suggested that one way to address the widespread public health issues could be to prohibit television advertisements for pharmaceutical products. Post-election, his viewpoint found support in SpaceX founder, Elon Musk, as he echoed ‘No advertising for pharma’ on social media.
Showing some agreement, Brendan Carr, a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency in charge of enforcing communications laws and regulating television and radio, commented to former NRA representative and current radio show host, Dana Loesch, that his agency would potentially endorse a ban on TV pharmaceutical advertising. As it stands, marketing prescription drugs on television remains completely legal.
In an effort to increase comprehension, recently, new directives have been enacted by the FDA requiring clear and user-friendly language in advertisements. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance showed reservations about the mass marketing tactics of big pharma. His concerns surfaced in an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, where he highlighted the colossal provision of $6 billion devoted to pharma ads in 2022, as stated in a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
During the conversation, the Vice President-elect speculated about potential strategies to limit the excessive influence of pharmaceutical companies. ‘What do you think would be the most effective way to control these giant pharma corporations?’ he queried. ‘I suspect it could be restricting healthcare related ads, which draw the media into this grand scheme.’
Currently, there are only two countries worldwide that allow the direct-to-customer marketing of pharmaceutical products: The United States and New Zealand. Critics have raised a dual-faceted argument against the unrestricted advertising strategies of big pharmaceutical companies. Their principal contention is that these ads could influence customers to request unnecessary pharmaceutical therapies.
They warn against television ads incentivizing drug consumption, leading to an undue burden on healthcare services and triggering unwarranted demand, subsequently escalating prices. The Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing referenced the escalating cost of Eliquis, a drug used to thwart blood clotting, as a prime example. After its initial launch in 2013, the drug’s price escalated from an average monthly rate of $250 to a staggering $529 by 2022.
This dramatic surge in pricing coincided with an intense marketing campaign run by Eliquis’ manufacturers, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, in an attempt to outcompete another blood thinning medication, Xarelto. BMS, in fact, had a budget allocation of $268 million to market Eliquis, back in 2016.
A second concern is that pharmaceutical companies could end up promoting more pricey products that may not necessarily be as effective as generic alternatives. Supporting this claim, a research paper published by JAMA Network in January 2023 revealed a correlation between direct-to-consumer advertising and the consumption of higher-cost drugs as opposed to generics or cheaper alternatives.
An analysis performed by AHIP found that in 2020, seven out of ten of the largest pharmaceutical companies spent more on marketing than on research and development. ‘Prioritizing R&D investment over marketing and advertising spend is critical’, stated Lauren Aronson, the executive director of CSRxP. ‘While Big Pharma often uses R&D costs as an excuse for high pricing or patent misuse, major brand-name drug companies spend more on marketing and advertising than on R&D. Their rhetoric doesn’t align with the facts.
Prudent marketing expenditures and lower drug prices would be beneficial for Americans’, Aronson remarked. Nevertheless, CSRxP does not endorse a total ban on pharmaceutical ads, but instead advocates for legislation that focuses on pricing rather than marketing. The group has expressed support for a bill mandating advertisements for drugs to list retail prices.
In line with this, a GAO report disclosed that between 2016 to 2018, four out of the top ten drugs associated with the highest Medicare expenses: Humira, Eliquis, Keytruda, and Lyrica, were also among the most heavily advertised. However, not everyone supports the call for a ban on drug ads.
Opposing Kennedy’s proposal for banning drug commercials, Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, called it ‘unconstitutional’ and an ‘infringement on the freedom of speech’. ‘Boosting commercial speech allows sellers to educate potential consumers about their products, which is beneficial both for companies and the public who can learn about the various treatment options available to them’, he stated.
Cannon actually criticised previous ad restrictions on tobacco products, arguing they hampered harm reduction efforts. ‘Even the limitations on tobacco advertising have adverse implications on consumers, impeding their right to be informed. Not to mention, they’re a gross violation of free speech. We might have had more success curbing smoking if the government had refrained from meddling entirely,’ he said.
He proposes identifying more accurate culprits for exorbitant drug costs instead. In fact, he suggests that compulsory prescriptions and subsidized healthcare are more likely contributors to the inflated pricing of drugs than advertising. ‘Pharmaceutical ads can educate patients about unknown conditions and potential treatments, making people more aware.
If there are worries that these drugs might not benefit them, the solution is to make patients more cost-conscious,’ he said. ‘They will avoid undesirable solutions when they are using their own money instead of money from the government or insurance companies,’ he added.