This editorial was originally published by The Washington Post and was distributed by The Associated Press.Â
nnn
Since stepping into the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done his best to challenge traditional medicine. He has loosened vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, peddled baseless claims about the causes of chronic diseases, and championed alternative therapies such as “healing farms.â€
Now, he is considering two proposals that would make it much more difficult for companies to air television advertisements promoting their drugs to consumers. One would require that ads include longer warnings about side effects, making them more expensive to run. The other would prevent drug companies from deducting advertising costs as business expenses for tax purposes.
At first glance, Kennedy’s approach might seem like a rare win. Fewer drug advertisements should please the anti-pharma crusaders, who think people take too many pills they don’t need. But believers in mainstream medicine might welcome the change too: Drug ads are annoying, unwelcome interruptions to Sunday night football or your favorite TV show.
Alas, while drug ads might be irritating to watch, they actually help keep our country healthy. As economists Abby Alpert, Neeraj Sood and Darius Lakdawalla explained in a 2023 paper, direct-to-consumer advertising — marketing that targets consumers, as opposed to physicians, informs people about undiagnosed chronic conditions, prompts them to visit their doctors and encourages them to start treatment for their ailments. A 10% increase in advertising views leads to a 5.4% increase in the total number of prescriptions filled for advertised drugs, the researchers found.
Importantly, about 70% of those new prescriptions come from people who are initiating treatment for the first time. That means advertising incentivizes people to get diagnosed — a big deal. Millions of Americans live with untreated chronic conditions, often because they don’t realize they’re sick or don’t think their symptoms warrant a doctor’s visit. So, nudging them into the health care system can improve overall welfare.
Industry critics are not wrong that many Americans take more medications than they need, putting them at risk of harmful side effects. But limiting consumers’ access to drug information is not the right solution. Physicians should talk with patients before writing prescriptions to make sure the additional drug is worth the potential risk.
Some critics contend that direct-to-consumer drug advertising induces consumers to buy branded drugs rather than cheaper generic alternatives, leading patients to waste money on expensive branded drugs without receiving additional health benefits. But the data tell a different story. Rather than encouraging patients to switch from their existing medication to a branded substitute, research shows that direct-to-consumer advertising increases sales for both the advertised drug and its generic competitors. In other words, drug ads boost sales for the drug category as a whole, not just the specific brand being promoted.
Consider Lipitor, a brand-name drug used to lower cholesterol and prevent heart disease. Yes, ads for the medication caused more consumers to start taking Lipitor, but it also increased demand for the generic version of Zocor — a competitor. That suggests the ads prompted people to visit their doctors, who often recommended the more affordable generic instead of the costly branded drug.
As a result, Kennedy’s proposals — which would likely lead to a sharp drop in direct-to-consumer advertising — could reduce overall welfare. Limiting advertising would discourage patients who genuinely need the branded drugs from seeking treatment. It would also cut into sales of other unadvertised drugs that benefit from the increased awareness that ads for their competitors create.
For Kennedy’s faithful supporters, perhaps that’s the point. A key theme of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again†platform is to reduce America’s reliance on drugs in favor of more natural (if less effective) solutions. But, for everyone else, particularly those living with undiagnosed conditions, the policies would be a step backward. Drug advertising makes America more healthy, not less.
