Drug Pushers on TV: Time to Stop

Pharmaceutical companies sometimes seem to be the only advertisers on television. Should they be?

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements, according to USC’s Center for Health Policy and Economics. The result? Drug utilization is” highly responsive” to advertising exposure and “…those who initiate treatment due to advertising are on average less adherent, which suggests that some of the increase in utilization might be unnecessary.”

Direct to consumer prescription drug advertising also exposes prospective users to often ignored risks. 

In a current television commercial for Abbvie’s Rinvoq, prescribed to treat arthritis in adults, a woman enjoys a trek through a rock canyon and a man teaches children how to tap dance. 

It all sounds so simple. Take this and you’ll get better.

But the truth is the drug has a lot of potential hazards, including:

  • Increased risk for developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. Reported infections include active tuberculosis (TB), invasive fungal infections, bacterial, viral, including herpes zoster, and other infections.
  • Lymphoma and other malignancies.
  • A higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke).
  • Thrombosis, including deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and arterial thrombosis, with many of these adverse effects serious and some resulted in death.
  • Gastorintestinal (GI) perforations. 

In another case, Bristol Myers Squibb’s newest commercial for its heart disease drug, Camzyos, has a message of hope for Mike.

In a 90 second ad, Mike, a man living with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, enjoys a hike through a pleasant landscape.

“There were some days I was so short of breath I thought I’d have to settle for never stepping foot on this trail again,” Mike says in a voice-over. But now he takes Camzyos and his symptoms have improved.

But Camzyos has a lot of risks, too. Side effects may include:

  • Heart failure that can lead to death, with increased hazards when Camzyos is taken with certain other medications or grapefruit juice. 
  • New or worsening shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, swelling in your legs, or a racing sensation in your heart. 
  • Harm to your unborn baby if you are you pregnant or breastfeeding or you plan to become pregnant or breastfeed.
  • A reduction in how well hormonal birth control works.
  • Dizziness and fainting.

And if you take too much Camzyos, you need to call your healthcare provider or go to the nearest hospital emergency room right away.

The message of both commercials? Adam Lenkowsky, executive vice president, chief commercialization officer and head of U.S. oncology at Bristol Meyers Squibb said at a Jan. 4, 2024, investor event that the point of the commercials it’s to “bring patients into treatment”. 

In other words, the companies aren’t really pitching their drugs directly to consumers. Instead, they want prospective patients to badger doctors to prescribe it.

Such appeals must drive doctors crazy. After all, if the promoted drug was a realistic treatment option, a doctor would likely have already thought of it. The commercials are an attempt to get in the middle of the patient-doctor relationship in a way that favors the drug company. 

The FDA requires that drug advertisements “…must present a fair balance of drug benefits and risks, with the most important risks provided in an audio (i.e., spoken) format.”  But counterintuitively, “… in giving a laundry list of side effects associated with any given prescription drug…consumers may actually be more likely to believe that the drug is effective in treating the condition for which it is designed,” argues Cohen, Placitella & Roth, a Pennsylvania and New Jersey law firm that handles pharmaceutical litigation. 

In 2015, the American Medical Association called for a ban of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription drugs. Nevertheless, spending by the pharmaceutical industry on television advertisements has continued to accelerate, with national health care costs largely driven by drug spending.

It’s time to renew, and act on, AMA’s call.

UPDATE: Oct. 7, 2025: Trump’s Crackdown on Drug Ads Could Sting TV Networks

The pharmaceutical industry shelled out nearly $11 billion in 2024 for U.S. ads, and is on track to top that this year. 

The Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday that it plans to close a decades-old loophole in Food and Drug Administration guidance that permits abbreviated descriptions of drug side effects in broadcast ads, as long as companies provide more information elsewhere, like online. That 1997 guidance is credited with fueling the boom in TV drug ads.  The administration move targets drug manufacturers’ TV ads and paid social-media ads from telehealth firms. In a letter to companies dated Tuesday, the FDA said social media has made it “increasingly difficult for patients to distinguish between evidence-based information and promotional material.” The pharmaceutical industry is among the heaviest advertising spenders in the U.S. When it comes to commercial spots during in-demand shows, they are even more prevalent. Pharmaceutical ads are the third-biggest category for linear TV and streaming ad spending in the U.S., according to estimates from MediaRadar.  Brian Wieser, an industry analyst, estimated that pharmaceutical ads account for 20% of all TV news advertising. The potential impact “will not go unnoticed,” he said. 

Progressives say “Nyet” to the free market

For all their bleating about conservatives wanting to constrain personal choice, as in their anti-abortion stance, progressives are quite comfortable limiting the choices of others themselves. The result is a kind of ruthless do-gooderism, forcing others to live their lives according to the narrow precepts of smug true believers who know best.

Take retail gun and music sales.

The members of the Trinity Wall Street Church, an Episcopal parish in New York City that champions progressive causes, want Walmart shareholders to have a say on whether the company should establish policies governing the sale of offensive items.

Gus for sale at Walmart

Gus for sale at Walmart

That would include products that are “(1) especially dangerous to the public, (2) pose a substantial risk to company reputation and (3) would reasonably be considered offensive to the community and family values that Wal-Mart seeks to associate with its brand.”

The church’s objective?  To force Walmart to remove from its shelves high-capacity rifles and sexually-charged or violent music.

What’s next, shareholder votes on stores stocking water pistols, banned or challenged books, white American Girl dolls, 50 Shades of Grey or American Sniper DVDs, gory video games like Gears of War 3 and Call of Duty Black Ops, or the “Plan B” contraceptive pill?

In essence, the church wants to substitute its judgment and the judgment of other left-leaning true believers for the free market.

Just like the plastic water bottle zealots.

plastic-water-bottles

I’m no fan of paying for water in plastic bottles. For one, It’s obscenely expensive, compared with household tap water. Two-thirds of the bottled water sold in the United States is in individual 16.9-ounce bottles, which comes out to roughly $7.50 per gallon. That’s about 2,000 times higher than the typical cost of a gallon of tap water. Most often the bottled water isn’t of higher quality than tap water either and the containers generate tons of wasted plastic.

But progressives aren’t satisfied with urging people not to buy bottled water, to use a reusable water bottle instead. They want to go much further. “Rally your schools, workplaces, and communities to ban bottled water,” they implore.

Another case of progressives wanting to impose their values and choices on me.

Companies should be free to develop and market safe products and consumers should be free to decide whether to buy them. Banning stuff because some slice of the population opposes a product for ideological reasons is offensive.

And of course I can’t pursue this topic without talking about Hillary Clinton.

HillaryClinton_2326613b

Hillary wants to require that prescription-drug companies spend a set portion of their revenue on research and development, or forfeit federal support such as tax credits or research money.

Does Clinton really think the government should go so far as to instruct how private businesses spend their revenue, all in the name of a higher good as defined by Hillary? And Bernie says he’s the socialist in the race.