While watching TV in the US, it is not uncommon to see advertisements depicting happy patients who have been cured or at least gained remission from their ailments, thanks to the featured medications. <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2024/11/15/rfk-jr-trump-pandemic-preparedness/" target="_blank">Robert F Kennedy, Jr</a>, President <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/tags/donald-trump" target="_blank">Donald Trump</a>'s nominee for secretary of health and human services, wants to remove those ads from the airwaves. “Several key appointees want to ban drug companies hawking expensive drugs to patients who can ill-afford the eye-watering price tag which comes with some of the medicines,” Mr Kennedy said recently, noting that only the <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/tags/us" target="_blank">US </a>and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising on TV. The advertisements work on a fairly simple template: the slot starts with actors living life to the fullest – surfing, swimming, dancing, hiking – all made possible thanks to the advertised medication. Then, to meet transparency requirements, it lists the potential side-effects, which can be terrifying, before reverting back to the cheerful footage of happy actors enjoying a pastime beneath blue skies and blazing sunshine. It is a formula that has annoyed healthcare professionals, with doctors irritated by exhortations that patients “ask” their physician about the advertised wonder drug. Mr Kennedy is a long-time critic of televised advertisements for prescription drugs, and in the new Trump administration, he is not alone. <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2025/01/21/did-elon-musk-do-nazi-salute/" target="_blank">Elon Musk</a>, head of the new Department of Government Efficiency who has already ruffled feathers with his call for immigration restrictions on skilled workers to be eased, used his X social media platform to call for drug advertising to be banned. Brendan Carr, Mr Trump’s choice to head the Federal Communications Commission, also indicated his support for a ban, saying the US was “way too overmedicated”. The position of <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2024/11/20/dr-oz-trump-medicare-medicaid/" target="_blank">Mehmet Oz</a>, who has been nominated to head the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is more opaque. He has criticised Big Pharma for high insulin prices. But according to a 2022 financial report, he has held significant stakes in Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie. Pfizer’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, donated to Dr Oz’s <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/us-news/2022/10/18/mehmet-oz-faces-backlash-from-pennsylvanias-armenian-community-over-turkish-ties/" target="_blank">unsuccessful Senate campaign.</a> It is estimated that Big Pharma spends about $30 billion on marketing every year, with $2.8 billion being used to promote only 10 drugs. Promotions for <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/lifestyle/wellbeing/2025/01/09/two-years-on-are-glp-1-drugs-such-as-ozempic-and-mounjaro-here-to-stay/" target="_blank">Ozempic</a>, a drug best know for helping with weight loss, cost Danish giant Novo Nordisk $187.4 million. Unless covered by insurance, Ozempic costs patients about $12,000 a year. That is cheap compared to Camyzos, a drug used to treat a genetic heart condition known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which has a list price of nearly $90,000 a year. “We are paying much more for drugs than anybody else; we take many more of them than anybody else. We spend twice on health care as anybody in Europe," Mr Kennedy said. Despite all this, he said the US has the "worst healthcare outcomes" in the world, lagging behind countries such as Costa Rica, Cuba and Mongolia when it comes to the effectiveness of health care. In his drive to rid the airwaves of prescription drug commercials, Mr Kennedy will have the support of the American Medical Association, which has called for a ban on advertising drugs and implantable devices for the past decade. “Direct-to-consumer advertising may raise awareness about diseases and treatment, and may help inform patients about the availability of new diagnostic tests, drugs, treatments and devices,” it says in its code of ethics. “However, direct-to-consumer advertising also carries the risk of creating unrealistic expectations for patients and conflicts of interest for physicians, adversely affecting patients’ health and safety, and compromising patient-physician relationships.” The ban reflects the AMA's fears that the advertisements are driving demand for expensive drugs when cheaper generics were equally effective. “Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate,” said Patrice Harris, the association’s chairwoman. Two years ago, with no ban in sight, the AMA demanded an array of protection: warnings of potential side effects should be clear; actors should not be used to portray doctors; and if real physicians were used to promote a product, it should be made clear that they were being paid. There are regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration, albeit 20 years ago, and these do not cover over-the-counter drugs where the rules, which are set by the Federal Trade Commission, are even looser. According to Caleb Porter, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, the current regulations are out of date. “While regulations governing drug advertising were designed to target drug manufacturers, we now live in an era where other parties –<b> </b>healthcare insurers, start-up clinics, telemedicine start-ups – are getting into the business of marketing prescription drugs.,” he warned. “And quite a business it is. "The problem is that these entities are not being held to any standard regarding what they can say about the drugs in question – products like ketamine, testosterone and stimulants for the treatment of ADHD, to name a few – and they are not only misconstruing the evidence, in many cases they are making outlandish, pants-on-fire claims about these products.” But Mr Kennedy, who threw his support behind Mr Trump after abandoning his presidential campaign last year, could face an uphill battle against Big Pharma, which also spends millions on lobbying. According to Open Secrets, Big Pharma donated more than $15 million in the 2023-2024 political cycle, with $8.3 million going to Republican candidates and $6.6 million to Democrats. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, also reportedly donated more than half a million dollars to groups backing the ultra-conservative Project 2025 agenda. According to<i> The</i> <i>Wall Street Journal,</i> it also donated $1 million towards the cost of Mr <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2025/01/21/donald-trump-inauguration/" target="_blank">Trump’s second inauguration</a>. Even if Mr Kennedy is backed in his goal by Mr Trump, he could face months if not years of court cases. The courts, in the past, have been sympathetic to the pharmaceutical industry. During the first Trump administration, the government tried to compel drug companies to include the price of their products in their commercials, but this was blocked by a judge.