As both a wife and a mother, I find the philosophy behind the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement promising, especially its emphasis on personal responsibility and encouraging Americans to put their health first through regular exercise and a balanced diet. Americans could all stand to pay closer attention to what’s in our food, especially with a looming Super Bowl snack binge. But the parts of the MAHA movement that promote more government control in our daily lives are deeply concerning. People should be allowed to make informed decisions about which medications and foods are right for them and their children, without government interference. Families like mine deserve more freedom and choice, not more dictates from unelected Washington bureaucrats.
Policymakers have made clear: not only are they opposed to direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, but they also want to prevent Americans from watching them. The FDA’s crackdown on DTC ads is making a big splash just in time for a deluge of ads planned for Super Bowl Sunday.
Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, the FDA (part of the HHS) has issued a flurry of warning letters to producers claiming that their advertisements are misleading and must be changed. For example, the makers of Fasenra (an asthma medication) landed in hot water for showing “compelling before-and-after presentations imply[ing] an improvement in social and emotional functioning. Before Fasenra treatment, the woman is described and presented as bored, stuck at home, and ‘losing [her] groove.’ In contrast, after Fasenra treatment, she is portrayed as someone with an active social life, involving salsa dancing, that is captured on social media as a photo garnering numerous ‘likes.’” Besides the ridiculousness of targeting salsa dancing on TV, the crackdown (and corresponding legislation) is harmful to patients.
The White House has found (surprising) allies on this issue in Congress.
In June, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine) joined forces to curb pharmaceutical companies’ ability to advertise. The pair introduced S.2068, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act, which would prohibit advertising of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmaceuticals on television, radio, in print, on digital platforms, and on social media. The prohibition specifically targets pharmaceuticals, while excluding other products such as medical devices, dietary supplements, cosmetics, and over-the-counter drugs.
Prohibiting or arbitrarily restricting DTC advertising limits patients’ access to medical information and reduces awareness of potentially life-saving treatments. A comprehensive review of the evidence finds that the benefits of DTC advertising include “patients’ enhanced information-seeking, increased patient requests for appropriate prescriptions (when addressing potential underuse) and patients’ perceptions of higher-quality interactions with prescribers.” While it’s critical that providers push back against any mistaken patient impressions about medications, banning DTC advertising would do far more harm than good.
DTC advertising of pharmaceuticals is already subject to extensive regulation promulgated by the FDA, requiring ads to reflect the approved product label, highlight benefits, maintain high standards of transparency, and include (an often exhaustive) discussion of risks. When these requirements are fulfilled, DTC advertising enables patients to learn about drug options beyond those that physicians may know about or be incentivized to prescribe. Going beyond current rules and banning DTC advertising would not only harm patients but also disadvantage new, smaller, and generic drug manufacturers, whose products might otherwise remain unknown to patients. This reduction in market visibility could lead to higher drug costs due to decreased competitive pressure. Overall, DTC advertising plays a critical role in informing patients and promoting competition within the medical marketplace.
Additionally, proposed bans on DTC advertising pose serious constitutional concerns. Prescription drug ads are considered by the courts to be commercial speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. Efforts to censor speech are almost always a slippery slope toward increasingly broad restrictions on other industries and even individuals. Commercial speech rights must be balanced with substantial government interests, such as consumer protection, but overly broad or arbitrary restrictions cannot pass legal muster.
Transparency and open discourse are essential for public health, and restricting access to information will lead to mistrust and poor health outcomes. Patients should be better educated about their healthcare conditions and treatment options, and be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves and their families, without government interference.
Policymakers must reject illegal and unwise bans on drug advertisements and put patients and families first. Making America healthier starts with we the people, not politicians.
Christina Smith is the Director of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center.
