Attempts by President Trump’s administration to curb advertisement for pharmaceutical drugs on television are a possible marketing barrier for some of the country’s largest drug manufacturers, threatening a major revenue stream for media companies.
Experts at the advertising and pharmaceutical industry say that this week an executive order trump signed a existential threat to the business model of both drug manufacturers and media companies, who raised an estimated $ 5 billion in advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies in 2024.
The order directs the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure “transparency and accuracy” in direct-to-consumer advertisements, including the need for more revelations of side effects in television and other advertisements.
The order is reduced by directing the lump sum ban on drug advertisements, although HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior has called for a wholesale end for direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs.
Robin Feldman, an expert in health law and a professor at the University of California, said, “This is a shot beyond the bow from the administration that is telling these companies that we are looking at you, doing our work together or we are coming after you.” “The voice of the message matters more as the language here.”
The administration has recently been stated to some of the country’s largest drug manufacturers that have recently been stated to warning of material warnings in its advertisements, part of a broad push to deal with “loss of loss” in marketing of high -cost drugs.
The action is seen as a face from previous administration, thanks to a powerful healthcare lobby how to sell drug manufacturers market and their products, which is leading to bounce in Big Pharma advertisements on television in recent decades.
Chris Meekins, a healthcare lobist in Washington, demanded assurances in a memo this week in a memo that was obtained by Hill.
Meekins has written that although Trump does not have the right to ban pharmaceutical advertisements, his administration is trying to die by disclosure and making rules. ,
“Can it avoid legal challenges, it’s a very open question,” he said.
But Meikins suggested that companies would have to consider closely whether they want to challenge Trump on the matter.
“Are you sued and at risk on the anger of Trump administration?” Meekins asked. “If a company suess it, they can aim to focus more focus related to most preferred nations actions and Medicare Drug Dialogue (if they have a drug selected). No company wants to be the next Harvard.”
Despite those results, some sources said that some company is likely to challenge the order in the court.
“One of these companies is likely to sue it,” said Roy Gutterman, director of the Tilli Center for Free Speech at Syrakuse University Newhouse School. “But commercial speech is preserved, less than political speech, which means that the government can implement appropriate rules to support a significant government interest … and public health is a proper government interest.”
White House officials have insisted that they are not interested in imposing a lump sum restriction on direct-to-consumer advertisements, but instead they are interested in more transparency and more informed people on medicine and its side effects.
A senior administration official told reporters during a background call this week, “Our goal is not to see a certain numerical decrease in advertisements.” “Our goal is to ensure that patients have proper information about drugs that cause potential damage, and this is to rebuild the public trust.”
Drug manufacturers can have major downstream effects for media companies either spend less on advertising or how to make the drug commercial more and more.
Many of the country’s major newscast and day time cable news shows the wall-to-wal advertisements for drugs, which are to combat conditions ranging from obesity to eczema and chronus disease.
Advertising officials and broadcasting television interiors meanwhile warned that Big Pharma is an important basis for the rapidly unstable financial foundation of the advertising industry.
The trump administration’s investigation into Big Pharma, these people say, it comes at the time of widespread uncertainty on the financial future of linear broadcasting channels and news providers.
“Big Pharma plays a big role in supporting the news seen on TV,” Gutterman said. “There are a whole segment of copyriers and cinematographers and media professionals who risk cutting these advertising budgets or pharmaceutical companies try to marketing their products through other means.”
Others say that a more honest advertising strategy by some of the country’s largest drug manufacturers would be a welcome development in the interest of public health.
Aaron Kesaleheim, a professor at medicine and an expert at Pharmacopidemiology at Harvard Medical School, said, “It is very difficult to offer a complete picture of the benefits and risks of drugs in a 30 -second TV spot at the same time, you are trying to make it entertaining and consuming for a large scale audiences.”
“Drug advertisements are not a good way to inform people about their options, but they are very popular so I can understand if some people are tired of them.”
Nathanial Waxel contributed reporting
