5Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I do not have much in common.
He grew up on his family’s estate, Hickory Hill, in Virginia. I grew up on a 2-block street in Haymount. He had 10 siblings. I have 1. Our politics are vastly different.
One thing we do agree on, and adamantly, is banning prescription drug advertising on television. The United States is clearly an outlier in allowing such advertising. The only other developed nation to do so is New Zealand.
We have all seen these ads, many of them targeted toward seniors, who are likely to take more prescription medications than younger people. The ads address conditions many of us have never heard of, much less suffer from, and reel out all sorts of terrifying side effects. They never mention cost, and with good reason, since manufacturers aim to make as much money on their sales as possible before the drug becomes generic, bringing in substantially less revenue. Some of these drugs, such as recently developed weight loss medicines, cost consumers and their insurance providers thousands of dollars a month before they become generic.
The United States began allowing this pharmaceutical gravy train in the 1990s, a practice which some experts say allows drug manufacturers to make as much as 5 times more on prescription drug sales to consumers than the TV advertising itself costs, estimated at more than $5B. Such advertising is often defended by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. Some may have positive effects, such as encouraging Americans, especially seniors, to get vaccinated.
The ads also encourage people to pressure physicians for various medications—“ask your doctor if xyz drug is right for you.” They may also encourage consumers to seek the latest and greatest new pharmaceutical product when an older and likely less expensive drug would be equally effective.
The American Medical Association has long supported a ban on pharmaceutical ads on television, and many American patients have seen our doctors roll his or her eyes when we suggest that some prescription drug we saw on television might be appropriate for us.
Former President Donald Trump showed interest in curbing such advertising during his first term and has nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or RFK in Kennedy shorthand, to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. If confirmed by the US Senate, Kennedy is expected to seek a ban on prescription drug advertising. Another Trump ally, Elon Musk, recently wrote on social media, “No advertising for pharma.” In addition, Trump’s choice to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcast media, says his agency could enforce such a ban.
That said, it would not be easy. The prescription drug industry is not called “Big Pharma” for no reason, and it would be expected to fight anything resembling a ban tooth and nail. Big Pharma has a significant presence in North Carolina, particularly in the Triangle, so Tar Heels can expect to be involved in any effort to curb drug advertising.
It is also not clear how to slow down or even stop this advertising juggernaut, which has been running for decades. Congress could initiate legislation, but members would be under tremendous pressure from Big Pharma not to enact it. Trump could issue an executive order of some sort, but either way court challenges would delay or prohibit restrictions or an outright ban.
RFK or whoever becomes US Secretary of Health and Human Services will have a full plate. If he is confirmed, though, I will cheer him on in his effort to end the United States’ outlier status with prescription drug advertising.

Latest Articles

  • “Redefining Indigenous” artists celebrate heritage
  • Commissioner's commitment to county residents
  • This year, let's take on Big Pharma advertising
  • UNC and Bill Belichick, will it work?
  • Ashanti Bennett named interim president of Cool Spring Downtown District
  • Fayetteville Dogwood Festival hires new director
Up & Coming Weekly Calendar
  

Advertise Your Event:

Login/Subscribe