White House Asks FDA To Review Pharma Advertising On TV (whitehouse.gov) 64
President Trump on Tuesday issued a memorandum directing the FDA and HHS to crack down on misleading direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads, requiring clearer disclosure of risks and ensuring that promotions don't overstate benefits or push costly drugs over generics. Longtime Slashdot reader sinij shares an excerpt from the memorandum: The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall therefore take appropriate action to ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, including by increasing the amount of information regarding any risks associated with the use of any such prescription drug required to be provided in prescription drug advertisements, to the extent permitted by applicable law. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall take appropriate action to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's prescription drug advertising provisions, and otherwise ensure truthful and non-misleading information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. "Advertising dollars is a major avenue for pharmaceutical companies to influence news and attempt to shape public opinion," comments sinij. "Advertising was a major contributor to painkiller addiction, where networks were hesitant to cover early reports of addictiveness. It is likely directly contributing today to lack of critical coverage of Ozempic. It is just too big of a conflict of interest to allow to stand."
Advertising drives up costs (Score:5, Insightful)
First question: Who watches linear TV anymore besides the older retirees?
Second question: Why was this even permitted in the first place? Advertising is expensive. It helps drive up the costs of brand name drugs. There are very few countries in the world which permit pharma advertising on TV: The USA and New Zealand.
The world would be a better place with out any advertising. Make people seek out what they need. They will get a better deal if they do.
Re:Advertising drives up costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Saying "advertising drives up costs" is entirely too simplistic. For a non-drug product, advertising increases your sales volume and allows you to move more product. The "cost" of advertising can be recouped from those extra sales, without touching the per-unit price. Especially in any market with healthy competition, increasing prices will drastically reduce sales volume and therefore profit. The cost of advertising is just one part of the complicated calculus of maximizing (price_per_unit x units_sold - fixed_costs).
You often hear people talk about the price difference between name brand and generic items at, say, the grocery store as "the name brands advertise, that's why it costs more!" No. The name brands estimate that their advertising allows them to charge more; it doesn't force them to charge more. It's always about maximizing profit, not recouping extra costs.
Now, there's nothing resembling a free market in the pharma business. Patented drugs have no generic equivalent, and customers do not see their costs because it's all negotiated through insurance carriers. The pharma companies are already charging as much as they can bloody well get away with, because unlike in a free market, lowering prices does not increase sales for drugs, because customers pay the same amount regardless.
These ads absolutely should burn in hell, and there are many good reasons why it is not permitted in any other country. But "increasing prices" is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's silly. Who hasn't heard of Ozempic by now? What person wit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, logically, every dollar they spend on advertising could be spent on research or simply not added to the price.
That assumes the amount of revenue generated by the product isn't affected by advertising, but in reality in the US (though the intersection of those two sets seems to keep shrinking every day) drug revenue is strongly tied to advertising. Ads get people to go to the doctor about a condition sooner rather than later, they also get people to refill prescriptions sooner rather than later. And those increases in revenue happen immediately. On the other hand money spent on early stage research today won't even
Re: (Score:1)
First question: Who watches linear TV anymore besides the older retirees?
You can tell by watching the kinds of adverts that run on that time and channel. The term "soap opera" was from companies selling soap during the day to housewives while the K-to-12 children were at school, and the husbands at work. I guess this still applies to some extent today but with more of that time to people that have legal problems, have some kind of disability from an auto collision or accident at work, or think up some other trope in advertising to connect the dots. It's kind of depressing to
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of depressing to see these kinds of adverts since they are often scams to get money from those that have little to spare.
Almost without fail some TV will be turned on while I wait for an appointment, or a well meaning relative who thinks I might be bored, and the dying puppies ad is playing. When TV dies it will be the ads that ate it alive, they cannot restrain themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
First question: Who watches linear TV anymore besides the older retirees?
Probably most of the lawmakers (who tend to be geriatric)? That issue aside, Big Pharma is also paying influencers, doing ad buys on social media, etc. It isn't only on TV, it just easier to make this issue about TV.
Re: (Score:1)
Second question: Why was this even permitted in the first place?
Advertising prescription drugs wasn't permitted until the mid 80's. For comparison, cigarette ads were banned in the early 70s.
Re:Linear TV (Score:3)
I have been finding the whole "suggested for you" menus just a bit too smug and stifling and would rather just turn on Film4 and see what's playing. It's turned me on to a lot of interesting films and genres that woul
Ads on TV (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I remember those! That's what I used to skip over back when I had a Tivo.
Kinda makes me wonder if they even have authority over this when it comes to streaming services. Can't they basically run whatever sort of ads they want since they're not using the airwaves? Of course, the whole point of the obnoxious ads isn't really to sell you things, it's to convince you it's worth moving up to the ad-free subscription tier. Now I'm thinking even that should have some sort of disclaimer...
Consumer warning: The Ad-Supported Tier may cause frequent interruptions in your programming, repeated exposure to local car dealership jingles, and a sudden urge to buy fast food you don’t even like. Other possible side effects include: seeing the same insurance ad seventeen times in one hour, forgetting what show you were watching after a three-minute ad break, and a creeping suspicion that you’re paying with your soul instead of your wallet. In rare cases, users may experience violent outbursts when an ad plays at a higher volume than the actual show. Do not use the Ad-Supported Tier if you are allergic to repetition, irony, or jingles that will haunt you in your sleep. Ask your wallet if the Premium Tier is right for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda makes me wonder if they even have authority over this when it comes to streaming services. Can't they basically run whatever sort of ads they want since they're not using the airwaves? Of course, the whole point of the obnoxious ads isn't really to sell you things, it's to convince you it's worth moving up to the ad-free subscription tier. .
You usually can't skip commercials via any type of streaming that has them. And some of the so-called "commercial free" streaming services changed their terms of service so that under certain conditions they can still show you some commercials. Paramount+ is one I remember that made that change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ahh... yes, the "everything is Orange Man's fault" crowd.
Be right back... gotta make some popcorn and grab a brewski!
Anyone wanna place bets on how many anti-Trump or Republican posts we reach in 12 hours (within 20 of your pick, either way)? Starting now... 10:47PM CDT.
I'm putting 5 Dollars Monopoly Money on 75
Re:I have no faith in this succeeding (Score:4)
Oh come on, that blurb of la Presidenta is just a plea for a bigger kickback from Big Pharma. As always with him, follow the bread crumb trail back to his pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Count is 1 right now, the one you responded to. Your paranoia is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically... it's well after my 12 hrs. is up, I only counted six total, so I'll put my 5 Dollars Monopoly money in 'Free Parking'.
Paranoia? It's more of being sick of always seeing that every single thing that is wrong is only Trump's fault... as if no single decision that any single other president made has ever happened, while any good thing is attributed to other people who weren't ever even Presidents.
If you're going to say something is (for example) Trump's fault or that he is guilty of something, b
Only Two nations allow drug advertising (Score:3)
The US, and ... wtf? New Zealand!?
i'm ok with this (Score:2)
I'm all for this (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's going to last 10 minutes before the lobbyists hand him another gold trinket.
Re: (Score:3)
An alternate yet equally cynical view is that this is an attack by some pharma companies on other pharma companies. Selective enforcement is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Best case scenario is that RFK Jr. has a vendetta against Big Pharma and will push this as hard as he can.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah you won't like the replacement either.
Re: (Score:2)
How safe are those Zyn pouches he keeps sucking on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when he was pushing against pesticides a couple weeks ago? Guess what happened to that
This is so weird to me (Score:3)
Consumers don't choose the drugs they're prescribed. Qualified, licensed, medical professionals do.
People should be going to their doctor and describing their symptoms. The doctor diagnoses the cause and prescribes something relevant to help with the root issue.
It seems entirely broken that this happens the other way around, where people ask their doctor for a specific drug.
The consumer advertising limit should be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer advertising limit should be zero.
In the UK it is. It's illegal to advertise prescription medicines here.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll play devil's advocate for a bit...
Consumers don't choose the drugs they're prescribed. Qualified, licensed, medical professionals do.
Part of advertising the drug is describing the symptoms they relieve. If people don't know that there is a treatment then they may suffer in silence than seek treatment. I expect the physician will be pressured by the patient to seek what was advertised but it's still on the physician to decide if the treatment requested is appropriate. I also expect that physicians will tend to agree to provide what the patient requested, either to simply make the patient happier,
Re: (Score:2)
Pharma has sales rep's that go see doc's to push their drugs. They give them free samples as well. Doc's aren't doing it thru tv. And I'd hope to god the doc's actually read the studies to see what the efficacy/side effects are. I don't see doc's often as still quite healthy but I know my Vet does for my dog.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't kid yourself.
Didn't I mention that I was playing the devil's advocate? I believe I did. Twice.
The advertising is for people like a friend I used to have. He'd go to the doctor and demand the drug he saw on tv. If that doc would not prescribe it, he'd find another.
That sounds like a case to argue against advertising for drugs on TV. Or, it can be considered the exception than the rule. I don't know what should be done here. If we pull the adverts off TV then people might not know of what treatments are available for a valid medical concern they have. If we keep them on TV then we can get issues like your friend. There's not likely a good option here, only the lesser evil.
Pharma has sales rep's that go see doc's to push their drugs. They give them free samples as well. Doc's aren't doing it thru tv.
Well, I e
Re: (Score:2)
Your friend had better have SERIOUSLY GREAT MEDICAL INSURANCE (such that doesn't exist..) OR be really wealthy as those drugs you see ENDLESSLY advertised on tv are SERIOUSLY expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers don't choose the drugs they're prescribed. Qualified, licensed, medical professionals do.
You can go to CMS Open Payments [cms.gov] and look up how much pharmaceutical companies have paid your family doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
There is some level of public benefit, as people may not know there is a treatment for some issue they have, but is there enough of that to justify the BS? You don't see many commercials that say things like, "do you have these symptoms? There may be new treatments available, ask your doctor", anymore.
And then there's the undue influence the companies garner over the news. Want to see a lot of p
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be devils advocate here, but NUMEROUS doctors are checklist doctors and pointing out a drug that might treat your illness is ... um, useful. I have never done it myself, but I have run across numerous doctors who ended up shrugging their shoulders and giving me some generic diagnosis that would clear their responsibility to me without actually helping me. Going to another doctor was my only option. I have suffered for decades from some things.
It's a good idea (Score:1)
But I have a hunch that there will be a large anonymous purchase of Trumpcoin and then this issue will be forgotten.
Lost art (Score:2)
Around age 14, in the no prescription public ads era, I was in the doctor's waiting room. He had copies of JAMA and some other journals on the waiting room table. I was leafing through one of these, when I spotted an eye-catching full page ad. There was a dramatic drawing of some large predator cat jumping out of the page, with the tag line "Morning Cats". I don't recall exactly which drug this was for, but the reference likely was to a morning spike in catecholamines, so it was probably for a beta block
Smart money says this was dictated by RFK (Score:3)
Cracking down on Big Pharma without actually doing anything to help America get healthier is totally on brand for the worst Kennedy in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not so sure. Take the text of the memorandum.
"increasing the amount of information regarding any risks associated with the use of any such prescription drug"
Is it RFK that gets to determine what risks exist for any particular drug? Are we going to see 'this vaccine may cause autism' messages?
In a normal administration this seems like a decent idea, even if just banning drug advertisements would be better. With this administration, I expect the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
An actually good move? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the only thing I've ever seen out of the trump disaster that I agree with. There's a constant stream of drug commercials on daytime TV urging you to "ask your doctor about" some targeted drug for a specific ailment. As if the doctor you are seeing didn't already know about it.
And then a stupefying long list of side effects spoken in quick-talk that are way more serious than the disease. They count on you going to the doctor and insisting on trying it though and he might go along with it just to get you out of his hair. These prescription drug ads should never have been allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed 100%.
Ad disclosures don't accomplish anything (Score:3)
Ads in general, and especially pharmaceutical ads, have perfected the art of dark patterns. They "disclose" all the awful side effects of a drug, while showing you people joyfully doing things made possible by the miracles the drug is supposed to perform. The disclosure is in a fast, monotone voice that drones on in the background. Nobody pays attention to these words, and the advertisers know it. Apparently, the government does not.
Ban drug ads entirely (Score:3)
Before 1988, drug ads were banned entirely on TV. Ah the good old days. They should be fully banned, patients should go to their doctors to figure out what drugs they need for their condition.
Ban it all (Score:2)
Radio, TV, Internet. Just imagine how much GlaxoSmithKline will save if they don't have to spend 3 minutes speed-reading the side effects after the commercial proper.
Wouldn't it be better... (Score:2)
ahhh, like everyone else, myself included... (Score:2)
You THINK those Pharma ads are (like normal ads) intended to get consumers to buy a thing... how innocent.
The ads cannot be for that purpose when the "consumer" is not allowed to buy the product. Like everybody else, I then assumed the fall-back position that these ads (which USED TO BE ILLEGAL) were designed to get little elderly people to pester their doctors into prescribing pills they did not need... BUT those sorts of pills are NOT where Pharma gets its money, AND while some doctors probably could get
Supplements are a Scam (Score:3)
Still no big government regulation for supplements, which make billions of dollars annually for making promises they cannot keep. But the orange turd is all about the fraud.
Turbulent Juice (Score:2)
On a regular basis, I see ads where they don't even tell you what condition the drug being advertised is meant to treat. Just the usual happy people doing life things while a voiceover tells you all the ways the drug can kill you, rape your dog and tell your kids Santa Claus isn't real. "Ask your doctor is Whatthefuckitrol is right for you."
Doctor: "No. Whatthefuckitrol is only for treatment of Ass Teeth."
WH Pharma Memo is political theater (Score:2)
This “Presidential Memorandum” on pharma ads is political theater, not policy. It has no teeth, no new authority, and no binding effect on drug companies — it just tells FDA and HHS to “do what you’re already allowed to do.” The point isn’t regulation, it’s distraction. Trump’s approval is tanking, Epstein Files headlines won’t go away, tariffs are backfiring, and his domestic policy of deploying troops to cities run by members of the opposition pa
I've been screaming since '97 (Score:2)
Which is when the lobbyists got through Congress to allow advertising prescription drugs to the public, not just doctors. Only one other country in the world allows it.
EVERY SINGLE AD says "ask your doctor is x is right for you". YOUR DOCTOR SHOULD ALREADY KNOW. YOU, ARE THE FUCKING TARGET, AND IT'S THE PEOPLE WITH THE LEAST KNOWLEDGE BUGGING THEIR DOCTORS FOR THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE.