I recently came across a compelling article by Dr. John Goodman, a renowned economist and healthcare scholar, in Forbes (11/24), titled “What the FDA Gets Wrong About Drug Ads”. In it, Dr. Goodman argues for expanding drug advertising—without the mandatory listing of side effects in commercials.
His reasoning? Underutilization of prescription drugs is leading to widespread undertreatment of serious conditions like diabetes and hypertension. He asserts that direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising plays a critical role in patient awareness, prompting people to ask their doctors about potential treatment options. So, if drug ads effectively drive doctor-patient conversations, why not focus on promoting benefits and leave discussions about risks and side effects to the professionals?
The real threat to public health isn’t excessive drug advertising—it’s the overly restrictive regulations that limit the promotion of valuable treatment options.
Dr. Goodman is particularly critical of the FDA’s new requirements (implemented 11/24), which mandate that TV drug ads include supers (on-screen text) matching the voiceover. He argues that this information overload makes it harder for consumers to absorb key messages. Instead, he suggests eliminating side effect disclosures in commercials altogether, allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise more freely and increase public awareness of treatment options.
The Real Risk? Over-Regulation, Not Overexposure
According to Dr. Goodman, the real threat to public health isn’t excessive drug advertising—it’s the overly restrictive regulations that limit the promotion of valuable treatment options. He also criticizes the FDA’s strict stance on off-label drug advertising, despite the fact that many doctors already prescribe medications for off-label uses.
I completely support Dr. Goodman’s proposal. No other industry is forced to dedicate 50% of ad time to potential risks. Alcohol, fast food, high-speed cars, risky investments, and even over-the-counter medications all have risks—but none are subject to the same regulatory burdens as prescription drugs. Yes, medications can have side effects, but if the goal is to increase treatment adherence and improve public health, then drug companies should be allowed to communicate more freely about their products.
A Sensible Compromise
The FDA is unlikely to completely eliminate fair balance requirements, but a middle ground could be reached. Why not permit simple ads that encourage consumers to ask their doctor if a specific drug is right for their condition? A 15-second ad mentioning a drug and the condition it treats—without an exhaustive list of risks—wouldn’t endanger public health. Instead, these brand-and-condition ads could direct consumers to a website for full safety details.
This approach aligns with the “common sense” messaging that has resonated politically in recent years. The FDA should take a similar view when it comes to drug advertising. If the ultimate goal is to get more Americans treated and adhering to their medications, then allowing pharmaceutical companies to better promote their solutions just makes sense.
Do I think the FDA will move toward deregulation, given Mr. Kennedy’s views? No. But Kennedy is wrong about the negatives of drug advertising. We need to shift the conversation to the positives—because ultimately, more awareness and access to treatment could help make America healthier.
