Washington, D.C. – The Trump administration is contemplating new regulations that could significantly impact the pharmaceutical advertising landscape in the United States. In efforts to implement stricter oversight, the administration is considering measures that would make it more difficult and costly for drug companies to advertise directly to consumers, which could disrupt an industry spending over $10 billion annually on such ads.
The two primary proposals under discussion involve mandating that advertisements disclose more comprehensive information about drug side effects, potentially extending ad length and increasing costs, and eliminating the ability of pharmaceutical companies to deduct advertising expenses from taxes. These changes aim to curb the frequency and impact of direct-to-consumer advertisements, which are currently allowed only in the U.S. and New Zealand.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long advocated for tighter regulation of drug advertisements, suggesting that the current system contributes to higher drug consumption in the U.S. compared to other countries. The proposed changes could affect revenue streams for media companies and the pharmaceutical industry, which spent $10.8 billion on consumer advertising in 2024. Companies like AbbVie Inc., which invested $2 billion on ads for its anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq, could see significant financial impacts.
"The administration is exploring ways to enhance oversight and improve the quality of information available to American consumers," said Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for Health and Human Services. Despite these discussions, no final decisions have been reached.
Potential tax code changes are also being considered, with the administration possibly working with Congress to remove tax deductions for advertising expenses. Such a move, initially discussed during President Donald Trump's tax cut legislation debates, could set a precedent for regulating advertising deductions across various industries, raising concerns among stakeholders.
The National Association of Broadcasters has expressed opposition to these proposals, warning that limiting pharmaceutical ads could affect local broadcasters' revenues, particularly in smaller markets, and might pose First Amendment issues.
As the discussions continue, the industry watches closely, aware that these potential regulatory changes could dramatically alter the landscape of pharmaceutical advertising in the United States.
