New Legislation Seeks Total Ban On Direct-To-Consumer Pharma Ads.

Critics of pharmaceutical advertising sense the tide is turning in Washington, with a new administration and a Health and Human Services Secretary who agrees drug ads don’t belong on the airwaves. That has led to the introduction of a second bill to ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including radio ads, to promote their products.

Similar to other legislation, the bill introduced last week by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME) would prohibit any promotional communications targeting consumers with prescription drug advertisements over radio, television, print, digital platforms, and social media. Their proposed End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would cover any medication, new or old, regardless of when the drug was approved or licensed.

“With the exception of New Zealand, the United States is the only country in the world where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs on television. It is time for us to end that international embarrassment,” Sanders said. “The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.” 

Supporters say all those ads come at a price to Americans, who wind up paying more than ten times as much for prescription drugs than consumers in other countries. In 2023, Novo Nordisk spent $263 million on direct-to-consumer ads for Wegovy and $208 million on ads for Ozempic. The lawmakers say Novo Nordisk charges nearly $1,000 a month for Ozempic in the U.S., while the same drug can be purchased for $59 in Germany, $71 in France, $122 in Denmark, and $155 in Canada. Novo Nordisk also charges Americans $1,349 a month for Wegovy, while this same product can be purchased for $92 in the U.K., $137 in Germany, $186 in Denmark, and $265 in Canada. 

“The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier,” King said. “This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements.” 

The lawmakers believe they have the support of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly called to end prescription drug advertising. According to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index, 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

The amount of money going into advertising from the drugmakers is significant. In the first three months of this year, Sanders says the drug companies spent more than $725 million advertising just 10 drugs. Data from ad tracker iSpot.tv, shows the pharmaceutical industry spent $5.15 billion on national TV ads last year.

Sanders and King want to ban pharma ads outright; however, another bipartisan bill introduced last month would use a different tactic. The No Handouts for Drug Advertisements Act (S.1785/H.R. 3010) would end the tax deduction for expenses related to direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Supporters see that as a loophole in tax law that forces taxpayers to subsidize ads for pharmaceutical companies, which in turn, pass on higher costs to their customers.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has begun pushing back against the efforts, launching its own marketing campaign addressing the price differences between countries. The ads put the blame for higher U.S. costs on pharmacy benefit managers, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Not waiting for Washington to act, some states have already begun looking at their own drug ad bans. In Oklahoma, the sponsor of the bill says he sees it as working in tandem with the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.