Does This RFK Proposal Align With A Political Ideology?

Basically a perfect reply.

If you wanted an answer to this question, then you shouldn't have started by asking whether the proposal aligned with a particular ideology, which is a different question.

As to your actual question, I think society probably would be better off if pharmaceuticals were not marketed directly to the public. But the answer partly depends on (i) whether you have a concern that American society is overmedicated; and (ii) whether you believe that doctors need patients to help them understand what drugs might be helpful to the patient.

I tend to believe (i) but not (ii), which is why I am skeptical about whether marketing drugs to the general public is a net positive for society.

I'm skeptical that pharma companies would cut R&D in a meaningful way if they were less profitable. In other words, if you were trimming fat at a pharma company, I don't think R&D is where you would start. Also, overprescribing drugs is sometimes very costly to society, as we proved with prescription opioids.

Off the cuff, I think it's a good policy. Viewing corporate advertising as free speech is a big mistake. There are worse cases, like gambling, junk food for kids, etc. In which objectively bad stuff is promoted using tons of money and expertise. But let's get the ball rolling.

However, one could argue that the ads provide information, especially in a society where many receive minimal or no regular HC. I'd guess that there are people in the bottom half who wouldn't really know the symptoms of certain conditions without seeing them in an ad.

It is a policy consistent with many ideologies. Even neo liberalism in principle, if not practice, advocates tweeking free markets and some restrictions on corporations.

RFK is very likely right that jillions in ad revenue affects media coverage, though that might not be the primary purpose of the ads. Why upset big clients?

It's a necessary appraoch for any decent society. It's nowhere near sufficient and can be implemented very badly.

Same as all the good stuff. Rasonable politics is about how it should be not whether it should be.

zero benefit from these ads. little informational content, mainly just propaganda pieces of happy people living life, bright colors. results in artificial demand for brand prescriptions that would not otherwise be prescribed, prompted by "customers" who typically aren't directly bearing the cost of "talking to their doctor" about a new drug that's likely a minor tweak of a generic but 20x cost to insurance that we all subsidize downstream.

hard to disentangle primary purpose. their foothold is strong. gotta love the 60 minutes feature on Ozempic literally sponsored by Novo Nordisk, or the series of 50+ nightly news scare stories featuring rando small towns where RSV was "surging" and supposedly overwhelming hospitals in the weeks before RSV vaccine was released.

Sales jobs are always the first to be cut in pharma layoffs. But R&D would be next because it is a huge slice of the cost.

Very few big pharma are privately held and Pretty much all startups and discovery companies are reliant on funding from PE or partnerships. The stakeholders have a finite amount of money to invest so if the ROI is too low they are going to move it somewhere else, like an AI platform form to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of a mature pharma industry 🤪.

There have been massive cutbacks in the last 3 years to R&D, record layoffs in San Diego, Boston, SF. Several reasons for this but the point is investors will move quickly when conditions change. Would a ban on advertising move the needle? Yeah…probably not, but you never know.

By the way, what are the limits of the proposed ban, no TV and radio? What about print? How about email? Browser ads? Could they still have dedicated websites where I can get information?

As far as the question on should we allow advertising for drugs i would rather it be allowed. I personally would not want to rely solely on a doctor’s advice and would want as much info on drug options. The more aware I am that there are multiple treatment options the more likely I am to become informed as to which one is best for me.

But if we don't have ads how are people going to get warned about the danger of rectal bleeding and suicidal thoughts? I've never had a doctor warn me about any of that stuff.

So the regulatory solution would be to stop mandating insurance companeis to cover drugs that cost 20x while providing very marginal benefits, not to stop the ads.

As with almost everything else it's current regulation causing the problem, not the absence of regulation on ads.

To answer OP, yes this proposal aligns with a political ideology which is called "state paternalism", the ideology that posits that the state has the possibility (and the duty) of substituting itself in decision making for adults, so that they make "better decisions" as defined by whomever controls the state.

State paternalism is common in both main parties, with democrats being stronger proponents of it usually but republicans aren't shy about it either, albeit to a lower degree

I'll tell you that in Italy most people including people with Hep C (often dormient) have no idea that drugs that can permanently cure it exist, because of lack of drug ads.

Which is very beneficial for the state, which has an inherent self interest in people dying sooner (as it's always the case when public pensions are a significant part of government budget).

its wild FDA wants to ban Phenylephrine because they say it doesn't do anything at all

for years its been included and now they re tested it or what?

Additionally, if medications are overprescribed because of advertising, how many people who actually need those medications and otherwise wouldn't get them if it wasn't for the advertising would there be compared to those who don't need them? Then you have to factor in how beneficial those medications are to those who need them compared to the damage done to those who don't.

What about the financial side of things? If a family is paying an exorbitant amount for a medication they don't need, how does that affect them? Does one of the parents take on a second job and spend less time with their kids? How likely are they to get in an accident on their way to work? Does the stress of taking on a second job cause health problems of its own? Is the medication covered by insurance? If so, how much more is the general population paying compared to if the medication wasn't overprescribed?

I thought there are only two countries that market directly USA and New Zealand . I know Canada allows pharmaceutical advertising but you are not allowed top say what the drug does Just ask your doctor if Ozempic is right for you which is even more crazy