By Mike Barnhardt

There’s a standing joke in the evenings while my wife and I watch television. Always, an advertisement for some type of prescription drug or another comes on. And always, I’ll say “I think I want some of that.” After all, the commercials show people living life to the fullest because they’ve taken this drug or the other. I want to dance around the office with smiling people. I want to go on hikes in the most beautiful places in the country. I want to go snorkeling before watching a fabulous fireworks show. I want to …. Well, some of those ads are for things that aren’t suited for a family newspaper.   

I’ve never understood why drug companies advertise to the general public their drugs than cannot be obtained without a prescription. I’ve been to a few doctors — and while prescription medicines are a favorite for them to pass out — I’ve yet to find a doctor who will prescribe me Skyrizi. Maybe it’s because I don’t have plaque psoriasis. Maybe it’s because I’ve never learned whether I’m allergic to it or not. 

That warning puzzles me even more. KFF Health News studied the television advertisements of prescription medications (Only the United States and New Zealand allow such advertisements) and the findings are interesting.  

• Last year, three of the top five spenders on television advertising were drug companies. Such advertising wasn’t allowed until 1997, and the companies were told such ads had to include true benefits and risks, and a list of potential side effects. Many, or most, including the warning of side effects as “death.”   
• A 2023 study found that among the top-selling drugs, those with the lowest levels of added benefit tended to spend more on advertising to patients than to doctors.  
• More than 50 percent of what Medicare spent on drugs from 2016-2018 was for drugs that were advertised.  
• Half of the 10 drugs the government targeted for price negotiation this year are among the ones with the largest direct-to-consumer ad spend.   
• Although the FDA last year issued requirements that the ads give consumers a “non-misleading net impression” and present information in a “clear, conspicuous and neutral manner”  and must avoid “audio or visual elements that might interfere with the consumer’s understanding” and “text information is presented in a way that is easy to read,” the FDA doesn’t look for violations. The agency expects the drug companies to self comply with the rules. We know how that works.  

KFF Health News reported that in the 1800s, it was the “snake oil” salespeople who touted questionable benefits. A psychologist then wrote: “The authors of these advertisements should be treated as public enemies and have no mercy shown.” As the more recent article pointed out, if more common sense and truth-in-advertising standards were enforced, most of the ads would disappear.  

Article author Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote:  “Remember that media ads for cigarettes were ubiquitous before they were banned by a congressional act in 1971 because they were found to promote a dangerous product. Yes, it’s a harder case to make with advertising for pharmaceuticals, some of which harm many people with their side effects and costs, but certainly can help some a great deal.”  

I don’t care about all of this mumbo-jumbo. I just want a doctor to prescribe me a pill that makes my life as full and happy as all of those shown on those television ads. I imagine a cancer patient watching an ad on television for one of these drugs. They’re led to believe by the visuals on the ad that if they take the drug, in no time they’ll be snorkeling and going camping. In reality, the drug may — I point out, may — give them a few more days or months of life, but at that point, snorkeling is probably out of the question.  

Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, proposes more intense warnings on these pharmaceuticals. “If you see it on TV or on social media, it’s probably not as good as something else.” Or, in the least, more expensive.  

While our government grapples with how to handle this issue, as consumers, we can do it ourselves. Don’t ask your doctor for a specific drug because you’ve seen a television advertisement. That seems simple, but apparently we’re not doing that, or the commercials wouldn’t continue. I wonder, with these companies spending millions on advertising, does that make the pill they’re touting more expensive for the consumer. You’d think so. Make no mistake, drug companies aren’t airing these commercials because they want to help more people. They want to make more money. 

 Mike Barnhardt is the editor of the Davie County Enterprise-Record.