Bernie wants drug ads banned. He's not alone.
Two independent US Senators, Bernie Sanders and Angus King, have introduced the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act that would ban prescription drug ads on TV, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. The US and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow such TV advertising now. And there’s currently no ban on any of the other platforms included in the Sanders/King bill. Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has talked a lot about banning TV drug ads but has done nothing about that yet.
Dr. Kenny Lin recently told some of the history on his Substack, under the headline, "Direct-to-consumer advertising distorts prescription drugs’ benefits and costs.”
In 1998, a Letter to the Editor in American Family Physician expressed concerns about the relatively new practice of pharmaceutical advertising directly to patients. Dr. Robert Thompson observed that the effect of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) was to consume precious time at an office visit by prompting patients to request expensive new “me too” therapies that often were not on their drug formularies. He argued that "the pharmaceutical industry should concentrate its efforts on educating physicians about its new products, not coercing patients to put pressure on physicians to make decisions that may not be necessary, beneficial or cost-effective."
Lin points out that most patients overestimate drug safety and that the most heavily advertised drugs have lower added benefit compared with similar medications. He cites one example:
… a television ad for the moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis drug risankizumab (Skyrizi) was ubiquitous during the (2024-2025) National Football League regular season and playoffs. On Sensible Medicine, Dr. Edward Livingston pointed out that the manufacturer, AbbVie, spent $580 million on DTCA for this drug in 2023, or $290 for each of the 2 million potential patients in the United States. The annual price of risankizumab is $288,000, so this is still a huge bargain for the company given the potential returns. Dr. Livingston explained that the ad misleads viewers about the indication and cost of risankizumab:
It shows a psoriatic lesion involving less than 1% of body surface area (BSA). Drugs like risankizumab are only indicated for moderate (3-10% BSA) or severe (>10% BSA) plaque psoriasis. Viewers of the ad might believe this drug can be used to treat small, isolated lesions. They will be influenced by the visuals and are not likely to understand that risankizumab should only be used for more severe disease than is shown in the ad.… The ad states that patients may pay as little as $5 per dose, 4 times per year.… The price on the website is even better: $0 per dose. Who could blame a patient for believing the drug doesn’t cost much. If it did, why give it for free? But it is not free. Rather it is one of the most expensive psoriasis treatments available. Who pays? All of us.
Lin also cites a 2023 commentary in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine contending that DTCA may "encourage patients to self-diagnose or to misinterpret their symptoms, contributing to often unnecessary diagnostic testing and the twin risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment."
The new Sanders/King bill faces tough sledding; other bills have died in Congress for the past 6 years. And drug companies are expected to enter a First Amendment challenge if any ban were imposed.
But if you’re tired of all of the “Ask your doctor about….” or “if you’re feeling XYZ, you may have….and now there’s hope” ads, you may want to write your legislators about this bill.
If you want to read more on this topic, journalist Martha Rosenberg also writes on her Substack about the bill and other issues, such as:
Drug ad-induced hypochondria;
Unbranded ads selling disease;
New self-diagnosed diseases.
And I’ve written about drug ads at least 8 times in the past few months:
Sports TV celebrity Erin Andrews’ diagnosis makes splashy headlines
Disease-mongering in pharma obesity event (read to the end to see the direct-to-consumer drug ad issues)
I consistently write about anything that pollutes the public dialogue on health care. And I think that direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is one of the top sources of such pollution.
Amen to this! Thanks Gary for continuing your important work. Much admired, especially by me! Don’t give up the fight!
Writing to one's legislator in reality can't overcome the First Amendment aspect of the issue. Plus, lobbying money carries a lot of weight with them. A realistic approach (once the present administration is gone) would be tighter scrutiny of the ads by the FDA and the FTC, with prominent information about cost, indications, and AE's.