Big Pharma spent roughly $3.3 billion in 2024 to advertise just 10 drugs. Whenever I see a drug advertisement, I sometimes play a little game. I Google the price to see how expensive it is. Sometimes the prices boggle the mind. Skyrizi had the most expensive advertising budget in 2024. AbbVie spent nearly $650 million to raise its profile. The drug is an immune suppressant, used to treat autoimmune disorders, like severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. The price without insurance is $46,000 a year but can vary depending on dose and frequency. AbbVie spent more than $550 million advertising Rinvoq, another drug to regulate the immune system and reduce inflammation. Rinvoq costs $279 per daily tablet, for an annual cost of about $100,000. It also treats rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, atopic dermatitis (eczema), ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, ankylosing spondylitis among other conditions. Dupixent, another immunology suppressant has an advertising budget of nearly $500 million. Dupixent costs about $90 per syringe and some patients may need multiple syringes. Of course, weight-loss drug, Wegovy and Ozempic both made the list, as did Tremfya (another immunology suppressant drug. Tremfya is $18,000 per 100mg injection.
Should lawmakers allow drugs to be marketed directly to patients? Many developed countries do not allow it. Drug advertising used to be more restrictive in the United States until 1997 when the FDA relaxed regulations. Basically, drug advertising is allowed if potential side effects are also listed in the ad. Prior to direct-to-consumer advertising most drug ads were targeted at doctors and pharmacists.
The New York Times reported on the debate, saying:
Should it be legal to market drugs directly to potential patients? This controversy, which has simmered for decades, has begun receiving renewed attention from both the Trump administration and legislators.
The question has particular relevance for older adults, who contend with more medical problems than younger people and are more apt to take prescription drugs. “Part of aging is developing health conditions and becoming a target of drug advertising,” said Dr. Steven Woloshin, who studies health communication and decision making at the Dartmouth Institute.
The reason drug companies advertise is because it works:
Industry and academic research have shown that ads influence prescription rates. Patients are more apt to make appointments and request drugs, either by brand name or by category, and doctors often comply. Multiple follow-up visits may ensue.
Public health advocates argue that such ads encourage the use and overuse of expensive new medications, even when existing, cheaper drugs work as effectively. (Drug companies don’t bother advertising once patents expire and generic drugs become available.)
When researchers analyzed the top advertised drugs, they found nearly 75% of those advertised were not much better than cheaper, existing drugs.
Another form of drug advertising is free samples dropped off at doctor’s offices by drug reps. People like free stuff. Doctors like patients to feel like they are getting additional benefits for their visit. Patients like free samples but samples from your doctor are always costly drugs, not cheap generics.
The Trump Administration supports a return to the pre-1997 policy that restricts direct-to-consumer advertising. On the one hand, government restricting free speech is rarely a good thing. On the other hand, patients are not paying the bill for many of these costly drugs and when they do, they may not realize cheaper alternatives exist. Perhaps an alternative would be to require drug companies to disclose the list price along with all the side effects. Better yet, if drugmakers can advertise directly to consumers, they should be allowed to sell the drugs directly to consumers.
Read more at New York Times: Should Drug Companies Be Advertising to Consumers?