美女免费一级视频在线观看

While taking a business-as-usual approach, industry leaders have been awaiting a potential proposal from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to ban pharmaceutical ads.

The promise to ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharma marketing “on day one” was one of the tentpole policy objectives of Kennedy’s unsuccessful independent presidential campaign last year.

Ever since Kennedy — a longtime critic of Big Pharma — was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as HHS Secretary, the issue has received renewed attention.

Now, over a month into his tenure as HHS Secretary, leaders in pharma, medical marketing and media circles are preparing for whatever comes next.

While it has been a goal of his for years, Kennedy has prioritized other issues during his first month — namely reorienting HHS to focus on chronic disease and reducing its workforce considerably. 

Though a proposed DTC pharma ad ban hasn’t been announced, executives are debating when it will be rolled out, what it would look like in practice and what legal recourse there would be against it. 

Despite the grandiosity of the threat, some leaders view it as just that: a threat.

Lauren Kushner, head of healthcare at MiQ, expressed skepticism about the ban’s imminence due to a lack of legislative action and noted that even if Kennedy proposed such action this month, it would face immediate legal pushback from a variety of stakeholders.

“We don’t have any evidence to date that would make me feel like this is something that is going to come to bear this year. I don’t even know that it could come to bear next year,” she mused. 

Consumer apathy

One factor that the Trump administration is basing its consideration of the ban on is widespread consumer apathy and disdain for pharma ads.

While pharma and medical marketing executives counter that the ads educate patients with relevant health information and additional treatment options, there is some data supporting the assertion that consumers are fed up with them.

Nearly half of respondents in a recent survey conducted by Civic Science said they oppose pharma commercials on TV — with 29% saying they “strongly” oppose the ads.

Parsing through the survey, notable findings include a narrow political divide on the issue and the fact that Gen Zers are the age group least likely to support a ban.

Mary Acklin, director of communications of CivicScience, said the data suggests a growing appetite among consumers to get rid of pharma ads.

“At least a plurality of the general population does not want [pharma ads] on TV or just don’t have a strong opinion on the matter,” she said. 

While the survey provides a recent insight into the consumer sentiment around medical marketing, it doesn’t necessarily justify a blanket ban, according to James Potter, executive director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communications.

Potter said while there’s some public apathy or even outright resistance to pharmaceutical ads, the industry sees them as crucial for educating patients, reducing the stigma around medical conditions and promoting consumer choice.

The broad ban

If Kennedy comes for pharma advertising on linear TV, Potter thinks that will be just the tip of the iceberg. 

While a ban on pharmaceutical advertising is under serious consideration, Potter said discussions he has had with leaders within the Beltway indicate such action would portend additional regulations. 

He said a proposed ban would not be narrow in scope and would bolster a strategy by the Trump administration to create leverage against two perceived enemies: pharmaceutical companies and broadcasters.

“President Trump said he’s not really big on policy, but what he is big on is leverage — so he likes leverage,” he said. “He wants leverage over both and that’s who he could hurt.”

Potter warned a ban could eventually extend to other advertising verticals and mediums like social media, which could galvanize support for a larger legal challenge.

As for moving away from traditional linear TV advertising to other mediums, that’s easier said than done. 

Some pharma brands may look at the consumer antipathy and potential ban as an opportunity to move their ad dollars to more digital and streaming platforms going forward.

Kushner cautioned that moving the pharma ad buys from linear TV to CTV or streaming services wouldn’t be a simple proposition given the lack of an available infrastructure, proper measurement tools or space to run the ads.

“With most clients, their initial action would be to push those TV dollars into CTV,” she said. “However, the CTV streaming market could not absorb billions of dollars worth of linear TV ads.”

Action in the works

While a federal ban on DTC pharma ads hasn’t taken place yet, several states like Texas, Oklahoma and Connecticut have already made moves in that direction.

Given these state-level efforts and a rumor that went viral on X earlier this week about impending action at the federal level, some industry leaders are anticipating a policy change sooner than later. 

Should Kennedy announce a federal ban, Potter said there will be a swift response in the courts from pharma brands, their advertising agency partners and broadcasters.

Potter predicted a high-profile legal challenge centered on First Amendment protections for commercial speech would make a total ban difficult. 

He referenced the Supreme Court’s Central Hudson test for determining whether a regulation of commercial speech satisfies First Amendment review as giving cover to drugmakers in their quest to keep ads on TV. 

Still, stakeholders don’t have the benefit of sitting back and remaining unprepared, Potter said, adding that it’s critical to treat all of these threats as real in the interim.

In anticipation of such a policy proposal, Potter said he and other industry stakeholders have implemented a preemptive, multi-pronged defense.

This has included devising the aforementioned legal defense, conducting media outreach to explain the benefits of DTC pharma advertising as well as building coalitions with broadcasters and other industries that could be adversely affected.

“When you’re under attack, you have to be able to articulate who and what you are, and what the benefits are to patients, to society and to the economy,” he said. 

Wake up call

At this moment, pharma brands are well advised to reframe the value proposition around their ads and look for new ways to approach patient education beyond commercials.

If there’s any silver lining from the threat of a ban on pharma ads, Kushner said it may force the industry to make its content more human-centric.

Drugmakers, while skilled at researching diseases, developing treatments and bringing them to market, have struggled to convey these achievements through storytelling. 

“One of the most amazing things about pharmaceutical advertising is that it is a human story, but doesn’t get told that way,” she said. 

Kushner added that pharma companies should consider building goodwill with their target patient populations, center their marketing on human stories showcasing the real patient experience and move past regulatory-constrained, generic advertising.

“Take the time to think about who the people are that need to consume these pharmaceutical drugs,” she said. “What do they care about? What do they actually need?”