Frist Proposes Banning Pharmaceutical Advertising to Consumers

By Dave Wilson

Published on August 09, 2005

Senator Bill Frist, a former surgeon himself, indicated that drug companies have too much influence over patients, causing many to request new medications rather than those with established safety records. Frist noted that pharmaceutical manufacturers engage in heavy television and magazine consumer advertising, in addition to the money spent marketing directly to physicians.

Some industry analysts have estimated that such a ban would cause billions of dollars in lost advertising revenue. In turn, drug makers would see a corresponding reduction in sales volume for affected products.

Those in favor of a moratorium point out examples such as Vioxx, an arthritis drug that was very popular until reports surfaced that it might be linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Now many consumers have turned to Celebrex, Pfizer's popular painkiller. Some believe that drugs like Celebrex and Vioxx should undergo a waiting period, while safety is established, before direct-to-consumer advertising is allowed.

A spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industry voiced disagreement with the proposed advertising ban. He mentioned that advertising could act like public service announcements, letting people with serious conditions know that new treatments were available. He then pointed out that, when compared with research and development costs, the money pharmaceutical companies spend on advertising is relatively minimal.

Comment on this article →