Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants to Ban Drug Ads on TV. It Wouldn’t Be Easy.

The New York Times ^ | Dec. 23, 2024, 5:00 a.m. ET | Rebecca Robbins

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Since the late 1990s, drug companies have spent tens of billions of dollars on television ads, drumming up demand for their products with cheerful jingles and scenes of dancing patients.

Now, some people up for top jobs in the incoming Trump administration are attacking such ads, setting up a clash with a powerful industry that has long had the courts on its side.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for health secretary, is a longtime critic of pharmaceutical advertising on TV, arguing that it leads broadcasters to more favorable coverage of the industry and does not improve Americans’ health. He has repeatedly and enthusiastically called for a ban on such ads.

Elon Musk, who is spearheading a government cost-cutting effort, last month wrote on X, his social-media site, “No advertising for pharma.”

And Brendan Carr, Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, said that his agency could enforce any ban that is enacted. “I think we’re way, way too overmedicated as a country,” he said.

The push against TV drug ads threatens to dent the revenues of pharmaceutical companies, which can make back in sales five times as much as they spend on commercials, according to some analysts. It could also create uncertainty for major television networks, which bring in substantial revenue from pharmaceutical advertisers trying to reach older viewers, who tend to take more medications.

Though it’s not clear how such a ban might happen — Mr. Kennedy has called for an executive order — any attempt would face an uphill battle. Efforts to modestly restrict drug ads have repeatedly been defeated in the courts, often on First Amendment grounds. The first Trump administration tried to require...

[zeestephen]

Ban drug ads?

Why?

95% of the people who see TV drug ads have no idea what the drug is for, and they cannot spell, and often cannot pronounce, the drug name after the TV commercial ends.

More people may be influenced by print ads.

They can scan and paste the meaningless drug name into Google and find out what it does.

Ban drug ads?

The USA spends more on education per citizen than any other country in the history of the world.

But, our citizens and legal residents are so stupid they cannot decide what drugs to take, or not to take?

Pathetic!

[Nifster]

Oh puhleeze

I am grateful for modern medicines

That f you don’t like em don’t take em easy as that

[vortigern]

Those drug ads are only partially meant for the audience viewing them. Those ads are actually meant to financially ‘own’ the network with the enormous advertising revenue they receive for broadcasting them.

[jagusafr]

There’s an entire line of commercial free speech cases that disagree with him.

[x]

Somebody once said that the names and advertized effects of drugs were all fugazy, but the side effects were for real.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Oh puhleeze. I am grateful for modern medicines. That f you don’t like em don’t take em easy as that.

Isn't it time for your next COVID-1984 "booster?"

[WASCWatch]

I’ve been seeing a lot of ads for Xtandi, an important prostate cancer drug I take on a daily basis. It’s manufactures by Pfizer.

What I find disturbing is that it was invented by government researchers and then basically given to Pfizer, who did nothing to get the rights to sell it. It is very expensive; $3,000-6,000/month. A Canadian pharmaceutical company offered to sell Xtandi for about $360/month, but Pfizer payed off Congress to deny the importation.

[kaktuskid]

Or give you diarrhea. Or consipation. Or both.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Ban drug ads? Why?

The purpose of drug ads is not to sell drugs.

The purpose of drug ads is to be the primary source of ad revenue for the "brought to you by Pfizer" antique gaslight "news" media so they will never carry any negative stories about the pharmaceutical industry.

And brainless narcissists are OK with that.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

This can’t happen soon enough. There are a hundred of these obnoxious adds on every day. Cigarette ads were never this bad.

[mykroar]

I heard a comedian say the first 5 seconds are telling you what the drug will do and the next 25 are daring you to take it.

[TornadoAlley3]

At least the Jardience fat chick singing one

[zeestephen]

Re: "The purpose of drug ads is not to sell drugs."

Thanks, E. Pluribus.

I completely missed that.

[Mouton]

I was told to avoid lawyers who advertise on TV. Allegedly the best don’t have to advertise.

[Honorary Serb]

We got along without pharma ads for a long time, and did very well.

Most pharma ads are dominated by long lists of adverse effects. And any patient who is enticed by the ads anyway still needs a doctor’s OK to receive the prescription. And usually, their insurance company must cover the new medication as well.

There is enough info on the Internet to inform most patients about new drugs, and doctors can suggest new drugs to patients when appropriate. So pharma ads on TV are of limited utility at best.

[erlayman]

I’m confused by the arguments on both sides. Supposedly even the AMA is against direct to consumer ads because they are

“driving demand for expensive treatments despite” the fact that less expensive drugs are often just as effective. The AMA said it was concerned that the costs of running the ads are “fueling escalating drug prices...” Do they want the law changed that permits pharmaceutical companies to offer legal incentives to doctors if they prescribe that company’s drugs ?? RFK Jr and the medical establishment on the same side could potentially be an extremely powerful counter to pharma.

[vivenne]

Sadly, it will become a First Amendment issue.

[T.B. Yoits]

Run an ad for unpasteurized milk on television and see just how effectively any ad can be banned.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Or cigarettes or beer.

[Republican Wildcat]

You were indeed responding to a comment about those ads on TV.