Direct-to-Consumer Pharma Ads in the Crosshairs

The Responsibility in Drug Advertising Act, introduced in the US Congress, would impose a three-year moratorium on advertising newly approved prescription drugs to consumers.

You wouldn't think Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would have any relevance to the debate about pharmaceutical companies using direct-to-consumer advertising, but a video clip promoting the sardonic puppet's 2016 election special on Hulu proves otherwise.

The clip shows Triumph talking to U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz at a recent democratic national debate. "Bernie and Hillary together, they're so old they look like the couple from the Cialis ad," he says in the clip. "Maybe next time you should have them debating in side-by-side bathtubs."

The quips get a good laugh out of the audience and the Florida congresswoman herself, because that's how ubiquitous those drug commercials are. We're all in on the joke.

But no one is laughing louder than big pharma.

According to the American Medical Association, this level of brand saturation by Cialis and countless other drugs that have become household names, leads to more people seeking prescription medications that they might not need from physicians who might not be willing to prescribe them. This increases the price of those drugs and the money spent on selling them. And it's one of the reasons the AMA voted to ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices back in November.

"Today's vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices," AMA board chair-elect Patrice A. Harris said in a media release last November. "Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."

A representative from the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America countered, telling the Associated Press that DTC ads provide "scientifically accurate information to patients so that they are better informed about their health care and treatment options" and that the ads encourage patients to visit their doctors' offices "for important doctor-patient conversations about health that might otherwise not take place."

Limits Proposed
At the time, this rhetoric seemed largely symbolic, since the AMA's vote had no real impact. Only the Food and Drug Administration or Congress can actually ban pharmaceutical advertising. But last week a representative from Connecticut introduced a bill to Congress that proposes to put limits on pharma DTC campaigns.

"At the end of the day, we should allow informed medical professionals, not advertising executives, to guide our healthcare spending," Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) told AdAge. Her "Responsibility in Drug Advertising Act" would impose a three-year moratorium on advertising newly approved prescription drugs to consumers.

DeLaura said the temporary ban would prevent consumers from receiving inaccurate information while also lowering healthcare costs. Under the legislation, new drugs that the Department of Health and Human Services determine to have significant side effects would be prohibited from running even after the three-year moratorium.

Of course, the proposal already has some major opponents.

"What [Ms. DeLauro] is saying is that if you come up with a drug that is lifesaving, you could not tell people about it for two or three years," Dan Jaffe, the top lobbyist for the Association of National Advertisers, told AdAge. "Cutting people off from truthful, valuable, and lifesaving information is not only deceptive, but unconstitutional."

He also said the proposed ban "would paternalistically roll the clock back decades to the days when only doctors could be 'trusted' to receive information about important health issues."

While it's unclear if the "Responsibility in Drug Advertising Act" will gain any traction in Congress, the mere fact that it was introduced adds to the momentum of those opposing pharma DTC ads.

Late last year, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on pharmaceutical price gouging in a campaign ad. One of her proposed tactics is stopping direct-to-consumer drug company advertising subsidies.

"Almost every country in the industrialized world bans or severely restricts direct-to-consumer advertising because it increases prescription drug costs, and can include confusing, misleading or incomplete information or exaggerated claims if not regulated effectively," her Plan for Lowering Drug Costs states:

"Clinton's plan would eliminate corporate write-offs for direct-to-consumer advertising, saving the government billions of dollars over the next decade. She would use the proceeds to help invest in research, by devoting the funds to help pay for making permanent and simplifying the R&D tax credit. And going forward, Clinton's plan would establish a mandatory FDA pre-clearance procedure for these ads funded through user-fees paid for by pharmaceutical manufacturers in order to be sure that the ads provide clear and understandable information to consumers."

At this rate, Triumph's Cialis joke might not land with future generations. And we all may be the better for it.