The Mix by Inizio Evoke Media
This article reflects updated insights on the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act, a recent legislative effort aimed at banning direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising.
As of June/July, the bill faced low to moderate prospects for passage due to First Amendment concerns and strong industry pushback. However, ongoing bipartisan and regulatory interest suggests growing momentum to curb the influence of pharmaceutical marketing.
The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act coincided with a renewed push to eliminate the tax deductibility of DTC ad spending—a parallel effort led by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Elissa Slotkin, with support from Sens. Sanders and Warren.
If enacted, companies would be prevented from writing off billions in advertising costs annually, significantly escalating both the financial and political pressure on DTC practices.
That proposal also aligned with the long-standing position of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who repeatedly called for a ban on DTC advertising—most recently through the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) policy platform, which frames DTC promotion as a driver of “over-medication” and public misinformation.
Notably, the bill’s introduction came on the same day as the 30-day deadline for pharmaceutical companies to respond to President Trump’s Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Executive Order on drug pricing—another effort to undercut perceived pharma excess.
With little apparent progress from companies and remarks from Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla suggesting MFN may ultimately lead to “nothing," even if this bill does not ultimately advance, it may serve as a bargaining chip in broader negotiations around pricing, tax reform, or regulatory changes. The administration’s aggressive posture—and willingness to push extreme proposals - should not be underestimated, particularly if political leverage is at stake.
Key Implications:
Reputational Risk: Major ad spenders (e.g., Wegovy, Ozempic, Skyrizi) are now political symbols of excess and misinformation.
Financial Exposure: If ad deductibility is repealed, it would materially raise tax liabilities for leading brands.
Historical and Political Context
Sen Bernie Sanders’ Longstanding Advocacy
Longtime critic of pharma’s marketing tactics, previously introduced bills to eliminate tax deductions for DTC ads and increase FDA oversight.
This new legislation, co-sponsored with Sen. Angus King, seeks an outright advertising ban across all channels.
Role of Other Lawmakers
Angus King (I-ME): Proposed delaying DTC ads for three years post-approval to reduce premature demand.
Chris Murphy, Peter Welch, Jeff Merkley, Dick Durbin: Co-sponsors with histories of supporting cost-containment and pharma reform.
Josh Hawley (R-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): Introduced a bipartisan bill to end the tax deductibility of DTC ads—part of a broader legislative trend toward restricting industry influence.
Feasibility Outlook
Legislative prospects are low to moderate in the near term.
Constitutional hurdles (commercial speech protections) remain a major barrier.
Strong resistance expected from PhRMA, broadcasters, and digital platforms.
Could gain traction as a negotiating lever within broader policy packages, especially if paired with tax or pricing reforms.
Strategic Impact
Raises reputational and financial risk, particularly for consumer-facing brands.
Increases political pressure to reconsider the scale, tone, and intent of DTC advertising.
Accelerates a pivot toward alternative communications strategies grounded in education, evidence, and clinician voices.
"End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act" (S.2068) itself remains in the first stage of the legislative process in the Senate, meaning it has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP). For the bill to progress further, the HELP Committee must vote to report the bill to the full Senate chamber.
Since then, there have been new efforts to restrict DTC advertising, through the latest White House and HHS announcements that are taking aim at recasting FDA requirements regarding the regulatory framework for drug advertising to provide more fair, balanced, and complete information for American consumers.
The Presidential memorandum states, “The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall therefore take appropriate action to ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, including by increasing the amount of information regarding any risks associated with the use of any such prescription drug required to be provided in prescription drug advertisements, to the extent permitted by applicable law. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall take appropriate action to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s prescription drug advertising provisions, and otherwise ensure truthful and non-misleading information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements.”
What does this mean?
Specifically, it infers that all drug advertising must have full ISI information as part of every messaging campaign and cannot any longer allow a “click for more” or “go to www.xyz.com for more detailed fair balance information.”
While most digital media placements already feature fully embedded ISI messages (static or scroll), we foresee potential challenges in paid search and video/audio media channels.
For search (which has not been called out anywhere as yet), it may fly under the radar; however, if not, it could impact RSA content/structure.
For video and audio messaging, the implication of the White House/HHS memoranda could be an impact on creative asset length to allow for full(er) ISI-fair balance.
If so, for example, a :60 might need to be a :75 or :90 to allow for more time for full ISI expression. This will have an impact on the cost of media placement/out-of-pocket as well as potentially higher production costs of the creative itself.
As this story unfolds, Inizio Evoke Media will keep monitoring this process and will inform our clients as the situation progresses.
Interested in hearing more? Connect with us here.