New Bill Could Ban Viagra Ads

Lawmakers are seeking to remove commercials for prescription drugs on decency ground, the New York Times reports. Representative James Moran is sponsoring a House bill that would ban television ads for sexual aids like Viagra and Levitra, though it does not bar product placement.

The “Families for ED Advertising Decency Act” asks the Federal Communications Commission to label ads for male erectile dysfunction or enhancement as indecent. Some in Congress hope that removing the ads will delay consumers from purchasing the drugs until side effects are fully known.

A similar bill introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler is called the Say No to Drugs Act. It calls for the federal tax code to be amended in order to prevent pharmaceutical companies from deducting the cost of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. Nadler told the newspaper that he doubts there will be a ban on drug ads, but he doesn’t want consumers paying for them. “You should not be diagnosed by some pitchman on TV who doesn’t know you whatsoever,” he said.

Ads Driving Drug Revenue

While the battle for reformed health care continues, legislators could view restrictions on drug advertisements as a minor victory. In 2008, drug manufacturers spent about $4.8 million on radio, magazine, newspaper and television advertising, although pharmaceutical marketing executive Robert Ehrlich wrote on his blog that it could amount to much more. Of the $235 billion spent last year on prescription drugs in the United States, approximately $8 billion could be the result of drug ads, Ehrlich reported.

Self-Diagnosing Consumers

Other lawmakers feel strongly that prescription drug ads could be postponed until side effects are fully known. Only the United States and New Zealand permit direct-to-consumer drug advertisements. Several years ago, New Zealand’s health minister sought and failed to adopt common standards with Australia on drug marketing, which would have banned advertising of prescription only drugs directly to consumers. However, general campaigns raising awareness of disease would have been permitted.

The risks of direct-to-consumer advertisements are self-diagnosing patients, critics say. Drug makers must voluntarily submit ads to the FDA for vetting before they appear, under current regulations. Side effects must be listed in ads, and the FDA is cracking down on companies that play down a drug’s risk. But the aim is to attract customers, who sometimes misinterpret symptoms after viewing commercials. Other academic studies indicate that ads can encourage people to seek treatment.

In 2004, Merck took the pain drug Vioxx off the market after it was deemed unsafe. Years of direct-to-consumer advertising had contributed to booming sales, and nearly 50,000 people claimed cardiovascular injuries. As legislators attempt to restrict drug advertisement, the Vioxx case will most likely be emphasized as an example of misleading and deceptive marketing practices.

No related posts.