Some members of Congress want to limit Big Pharma's ability to promote products directly to consumers. But the roadblocks are highIf Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) had his way, the little butterfly used to advertise the insomnia remedy Lunesta might not be allowed to flutter all over our TV screens, as it has incessantly since the drug was approved in late 2004. Waxman believes the U.S. Food & Drug Administration should be able to forbid companies from advertising directly to consumers until new drugs have been on the market for at least three years. He tried to mandate such a restriction by attaching it to a drug-safety bill. But on July 11 he came up short. After a debate centered on drug companies' right to free speech, the bill passed with virtually all restrictions on drug advertising stripped out.
The end of Waxman's proposal, however, may be the beginning of a fierce new debate over drug advertising. Critics are increasingly concerned that the ads encourage consumers to demand drugs they don't need, and in the process put themselves at risk of suffering dangerous side effects. A moratorium on advertising, some say, would give the FDA and drugmakers more time to understand the risks a particular drug poses before they plaster it all over the media.
With Democrats resurgent in Washington, some members of Congress are coming up with alternative ways to limit drug marketing. Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has introduced a new bill that would prohibit pharma companies from claiming tax deductions for ads promoting drugs that have been on the market for less than two years. Hitting the industry where it hurts—the bottom line—is his attempt to discourage the advertising while circumventing freedom-of-speech concerns. Drug ads, he says in an interview with BusinessWeek, "don't tell the whole story. We need to give people time to understand the pros and cons of a drug."
Read More
