Reply #21: The Age of Legislation [View All]

[Why Syzygy]

Legal reform of the patent medicine and drug industry continued. In 1927, a separate law enforcement agency, the Food and Drug Administration, was formed. Since 1962 the FDA has also regulated advertising for prescription drugs; advertising for over-the-counter drugs is overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.

Advertising directed at consumers helps spur drug sales, as it is designed to do. In 1983 the FDA requested a voluntary hold on drug ads until it could study the effects of advertising on the market. In 1985 the FDA ruled that such ads must also list the possible side effects of any medication. Then came the era of "reminder ads," those vague images of happy users with mention of the brand name, but no mention of the condition it was to treat. The FDA was again disturbed, and studied the issue. This led to new guidelines in 1997, which required television advertising to mention side effects, but didn't require extensive detail. This ruling signaled disappointment for some consumer groups. The controversy over the best way to regulate direct-to-consumer advertising goes on.

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/drugads2.html


Published: July 26, 2009

In the 1980s, Nancy Reagan told Americans to “Just Say No” to recreational drugs. (...)

Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, is sponsoring a House bill that would ban ads for prescription sexual aids like Viagra and Levitra from prime-time television, on decency grounds. Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, has said he favors empowering the Food and Drug Administration to bar consumer advertisements for new drugs for an initial period after the F.D.A. approves them — until there has been more real-world experience with the medications.

Meanwhile, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill called the Say No to Drug Ads Act. It would amend the federal tax code to prevent pharmaceutical companies from deducting the cost of direct-to-consumer drug advertisements as a business expense.

“You should not be going to a doctor saying, ‘I have restless leg syndrome’ — whatever the hell that is — or going to a doctor saying, ‘I have the mumps,’ ” Mr. Nadler said in an interview. “You should not be diagnosed by some pitchman on TV who doesn’t know you whatsoever.” (...)

“On First Amendment grounds, I am not going to say we will ban” drug advertising, said Mr. Nadler, who represents parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. “But they should not be able to get taxpayers to subsidize it.” (...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/business/media/27drugads.html?_r=2&ref=business