Latest News

The idea of mandating drug price disclosure in DTC ads is here again. A bi-partisan Senate bill was just introduced by Senators Durbin, Grassley, and six others calling for mandatory listing of the wholesale acquisition cost in ads. It is called The Drug-Price Transparency for Consumers Act of 2025.

As with prior attempts, this is bad policy. List prices are not what consumers pay. They are nowhere near what the overwhelming proportion of patients will eventually pay if insured. This bill is meant to discourage DTC advertising by creating a false belief that many drugs are “outrageously” expensive. Their rationale is consumers deserve to know the price of drugs being advertised. They say many other products list their price in ads so why not list them for drugs.

The problem is consumers only care what the final out of pocket cost is to them. Drug pricing is overly complex and that is a legitimate policy issue. Telling consumers a cancer drug is $5,000 a month in a DTC ad is not at all helpful to them if they actually pay $50 with insurance. All that faux disclosure might do is scare them into thinking they cannot afford it.

The bill sponsors’ logic is faulty that listing price creates transparency and price competition. There is no evidence that listing drug prices creates competition given the list price is nowhere near actual patient price. Yes, it may work for automobiles, but not for prescription drugs.

This bill is a blatant attempt to discourage drug ads because payers would prefer consumers not request information on high-priced drugs. Government, insurers, and other payers want to be the sole deciders on what drugs patients can get. DTC is inconvenient for them if a doctor prescribes a high-priced therapy. Does Congress think doctors are prescribing a $100,000 drug for cancer just because a consumer saw an ad?

If this bill passes, drug makers will have to add another useless super in the ad. They can do it if required but will not be intimidated into dropping their DTC ads. Clearly this bill is something the courts might weigh in on as the forced price disclosure inhibits commercial free speech.

Telling consumers a cancer drug is $5,000 a month in a DTC ad is not at all helpful if they actually pay $50 with insurance.

Unfortunately, this bill may just be one of many tactics Congress or HHS will use to try to discourage DTC ads. Robert Kennedy, Jr. wants to ban DTC TV ads outright, but that is unconstitutional so expect approaches that make it harder to do DTC. That could be through tax policy on deductibility of advertising costs, increased OPDP interpretations of violative language, more requirements for fair balance, and lobbying pressure by insurers and payers to limit DTC.

I get the frustration that Americans pay more for prescription drugs than other developed countries. This is a highly charged issue and deserves policy debate. Limiting DTC advertising for lawful products will not affect prices. That $8-10 billion being spent on DTC annually is not significantly driving up costs given our drug spending is over $500 billion annually. Of course, I admit drug companies advertise to increase demand. Given an average ROI of 2 to 1, advertising likely adds $16-20 billion to sales or about 2%. Would drug companies cut prices if they did not spend on DTC? No, they would reallocate to other promotional techniques or other investments.

It is time for Congress to stop trying to ban or restrict DTC. They are grandstanding to the American people with full knowledge their bill is not a real solution to reducing drug costs.