The United States is rare in the West. Because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But new efforts aim to stop it.
Recently, a bill was introduced in Congress, banning drug makers from promoting their products using direct consumer advertising, from television to social media.
Advertising for prescription drugs directly and indirectly employs many people. According to ISPOT data analyzed by the Wall Street Journal, it was hiring advertising workers every year, and spent on advertising workers, with prescription drugs throughout the evening news programme on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC.
Supporters of the bill say the ads increase the costs of prescriptions. The pharmaceutical industry association says advertising can help public health by raising awareness of the disease and educating consumers about treatment options.
Question: Should the US ban drug ads from consumers?
economist
University of San Diego Aranzin
Yes: Advertising is supposed to provide consumers with more information about their products, but are they in a position to make informed decisions about drugs? These decisions are probably best left for physicians who have more knowledge of the effectiveness of the drug. Consumers want products that can be shaken by smooth, repetitive advertising and may not be the best for them. The money spent on advertising is already high in drug prices.
James Hamilton, San Diego, California
No: Prohibitants argue that ads will force people to demand unnecessary drugs. However, the ads helped some of my friends learn about options they didn’t know were available. I also worry whenever the government instructs businesses to be allowed to speak. It is appropriate to ensure that your ads do not charge inaccurately. And doctors should always say no if they request a prescription that the doctor doesn’t believe will help them.
Caroline Freund Global Policy and Strategic School in San Diego, California
Yes: Advertising for certain drugs creates bad incentives, such as overprescription, higher drugs and insurance prices, and promoting the most profitable drugs. Insurance limits consumer costs, so more prescription drugs are purchased than they are needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry associations can promote treatment for the range of conditions and leave discussion of individual products to health professionals. Drugs also carry the risk of not being easily captured in 30 seconds.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Economic Research Institute
No: Rather than advertise to increase costs, businesses engage in marketing to inform the public (particularly doctors write prescriptions) of the usefulness of the medication. Without marketing, companies will not be able to provide the information they need to make drugs available for sale in the first place. The value of a drug is determined by the market, and consumers are driving the entire process. The value of advertising comes from the value that consumers place on drugs, but not the other way around.
University of San Diego Gnome Mirror
No: Most doctors keep up with the latest drug research, but some don’t, so public information about new drugs is required. What should be essential in advertising is its effectiveness, side effects and potential addiction using FDA verification statistics. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for a drug manufacturer to encourage or pay a doctor to prescribe a drug, and doctors taking such a gift should lose their license.
Ray Major, Economist
Yes: All ads start or end with “Ask your doctor if this drug is right for you.” Prescription drug ads target consumers who want to ask their doctors for a particular brand of medicine. Consumers are not entitled to self-diagnose symptoms and prescribe the medication themselves based on information from the commercial. Doctors need to prescribe medications based on the patient’s needs and are not affected by patients who have seen AD in prescription medications.
David Ealy of San Diego State University
No: Commercial speeches by true and useful pharmaceutical companies should be protected. The ban on drug advertising is overkill. A better option is to have more FDA and FTC regulations to ensure that the risks and efficacy of prescription drugs are generally communicated accurately through advertising. Under the ban, resources will be shifted to increasing promotional efforts aimed at healthcare providers as prescription costs may not be reduced.
Executive
Gary London, London Moder Advisor
No: I’m not a huge fan of drug ads, but unlike to cigarette ads, which clearly promotes diseases for generations, drugs at least save lives. The government should not be involved. However, we have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies directly promote themselves to patients rather than doctors. They complicate medical care. As is the case, these ads certainly support cable channels that require revenue.
Bob Rauch, La Rauch and Associates
Yes: The US and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to promote directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay risk and lead to uninformed decisions. Advertising can push consumers up to brand drugs, even when there are cheaper alternatives. Patients can also request unnecessary medications and pressure their doctor to prescribe them. Certainly, advertising can educate you, lead to previous diagnosis and boost the economy! But limit ads to the first few years of release.
Phil Blair, Manpower
No: They are similar products to other products. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on a variety of options just like any other product. Of course, they should listen to the advice of their doctors.
Austin Neudecker, weave growth
Yes: Last year, drugmakers spent $10 billion on consumer advertising. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world’s best Capita Healthcare bill, with relatively low healthy outcomes. A sophisticated spot encourages viewers to “study a doctor” with their brand, even if cheaper generics achieve the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence rather than marketing budgets. Pharma can transfer some of this outreach to physician education, allowing patients to learn about treatment from informed sources.
Chris Van Goder, Scripps Health
Yes: Absolutely. The cost of medicines is prohibited by patients and healthcare providers like hospitals, and the huge costs of advertising are wrapped around those costs. Although informed patients are required, pharmaceutical education should be handled by the patient’s physician, not by the jingle on television. Advertising can also be misleading and can increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers. That’s why many countries have banned advertising.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Libya
No: I don’t enjoy watching Rittany, a drug ad that is consistently shown in family programming, but I don’t support the blanket ban. Instead, drug ads should follow the model currently permitted for tobacco ads. It prohibits TV and radio advertising, but allows other forms of advertising with appropriate restrictions and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments is beneficial, the current barrage of drug ads is overloaded, which could lead to increased prescriptions and medical costs.
Do you have any ideas for economics questions? Email phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow us on the thread: @phillip020
Original issue: June 24th, 2025, 12:41pm EDT
