Sherrod Brown: End Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Ads

[crazytown]

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown recently introduced the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Ads Act

Washington, DC — U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently introduced the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Ads Act, legislation that would prohibit pharmaceutical drug manufacturers from claiming tax deductions for consumer advertising expenses.

According to a press release from Brown, advertising expenses by pharmaceutical drug manufacturers have more than quadrupled over the past two decades, rising from $1.3 billion in 1997 to $6 billion in 2016. In that same time period, advertising from drug companies has increased from 79,000 ads to 4.6 million ads, including 663,000 TV commercials. Economists have estimated that nearly one third of the growth in drug companies’ spending can be attributed to the increase in advertising for prescription drugs.

Brown says that under current law, drug manufacturers are allowed to deduct the cost of advertising expenses from federal taxes and the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Ads Act would eliminate this tax deduction for drug advertising costs, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize drug advertisements.

“The purpose of medicine is to help people, not to line the pockets of Big Pharma executives. It’s time to stop using taxpayer dollars to give tax breaks to Big Pharma, especially at a time when too many hardworking Americans are struggling to afford the medicine they need and the culprit is often price gouging by pharmaceutical corporations,” said Brown

https://www.lovelandmagazine.com/u-s-senator-sherrod-brown-recently-introduced-the-end-taxpayer-subsidies-for-drug-ads-act/

[Sneederbunk]

1. Ban ads for prescription drugs. That is all.

[crazytown]

2. No can do.

First Ammendment issue. ‘Corporations are people my friend’

[Sneederbunk]

3. Tell that to the tobacco industry.

[crazytown]

4. 'legally difficult'

Can direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs be banned? Apparently that is legally difficult. The courts have ruled that product advertisements are a form of commercial free speech protected under the principle that a manufacturer has the right to market its products.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/73060

[Panich52]

6. And there's discussion now about allowing them to mention prices.

[mindem]

30. Applying that line of thought

means that there should be no restrictions on marketing sex toys on television. There are all types of things that won't see the light of day when it comes to advertising.

[crazycatlady]

23. And for other healthcare 'products' too

I was on a train yesterday. Almost every station was plastered with ads for hospitals and cancer care. Why are we spending money advertising cancer care? You would think a diagnosis means talking to doctors about the best cancer care, not billboards at train stations.

[Panich52]

5. Hell, yes! Can't believe they get a tax break for annoying us with those damn ads

[srose58089]

27. Reading this post may cause . . . . . . . .

It just cracks me up to watch some of these drug ads. Here is a young/old couple holding hands walking through a flowered field listening to the robins chirp with that knowing smile that they took Drug XYZ and everything is going to be alright. EXCEPT ... may cause temporary blindness, loss of hair, unusual itching, constipation, bad breath, growing an extra toe, bloating, excessive flatulence, dry mouth or drolling and in some cases death. But in all cases will increase the bottom line of the drug maker.

Who if they did not need to would want to take such a drug.

P.S. I like all the candidates except one in particular who will not be running as a dem.

[wasupaloopa]

28. In case of death see your doctor and make arrangements to pay your bill.

[Sherman A1]

7. But, but. but.....

What would CNN, MSNBC, Faux and the rest of the Breathless 24/7 Cable Noise do for revenue????

[onecaliberal]

8. Amen to that. Sooner the better. Use the money to help sick people.

[WordsMatter]

9. Those drug ads are ridiculous...

So, what, we are suppose to watch those ads and immediately think 'I have to call my doctor and get some of that?'

The drug companies use that advertising to monopolize ad slots (because of high $ revenue) with the networks and who then follow their 'advice' on what to talk about in their news.

This will be very difficult legally... Advertising is a legitimate business expense. How can we target just the DrugCos?

Maybe a law that says 'advertising expenses are only allowed if the consumer can directly purchase the product or service'.

Senator Brown is on the right track but I don't think ending DrugCos advertising could stand up in court. I hope I am wrong.

[crazytown]

10. I'm sure Sherrod's Act would stand up in court

It’s about tax - tax deductions - and that was the reason the ACA got over the line. Justice Roberts said, the individual mandate was about tax - a ‘taxation fine’ and for that reason it must be constitutional.

[WordsMatter]

11. Not sure about that...

A tax is different than a tax deduction and this is not in the same category as the ACA.

Tax Deductions are not in the Constitution.

[crazytown]

12. Respectfully disagree.

A deduction no more than a line item in determining the amount of tax to be paid. The Federal Goverment has complete discretion in levying taxes, at an amount and calculation of their own choosing.

[srose58089]

24. drug ads and taxes

Did not the Repug tax act limit state and local tax deductions and it has not been held unconstitutional.

[CaptainTruth]

25. Interesting idea...

"Maybe a law that says 'advertising expenses are only allowed if the consumer can directly purchase the product or service'."

But I guess you could say doctors are the "consumers" & doctors watch TV too ... so ...

[WordsMatter]

26. I believe those damn ads always say to 'call your doctor'...

I believe advanced countries outlaw drug ads. And I know that Cigarette ads are banned - why can't we just ban ads from drug companies?

[yaesu]

13. I would like to see a ban on Drug Ads just like they banned cigarette ads. nt

[Ninga]

14. Yep, Brown gets this and so much more.

[True Blue American]

20. I alsoi heard Sherrod say

he talked to Trump who asked how he could help. He told him to get rid of the 50% tax break companies get for taking jobs over seas!

[MH1]

32. Yes, he does!!

[Mr.Bill]

15. They'll just raise their prices

to make up for it. The consumer will pay in the end.

[crazytown]

16. So why haven't they done so already?

Their duty is to their shareholders. Maximise profits.

[Mr.Bill]

17. They have, unless there is competition.

[Hulk]

18. Nice idea .....most likely will never happen.

I hate to sound like the perpetual pessimist but the drug companies own our Congress. They make the rules Congress just follows directions.

[lark]

19. I like Sherrod Brown, he's one of my faves in the race for the general.

I think he will rise if he's allowed any oxygen in the debates and I would be proud to vote for him if he's our general candidate. U think he brings a lot of good things to the race being from "the heartland' and an economic populist.

[Bob_in_VA]

21. No requirement to maximize profits

The SEC has no regulation that requires corporations to maximize profits to shareholders, that idea originated with, I believe Milton Friedman, but it was never formally made a rule.

[crazytown]

29. It's debateable

https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/

[LW1977]

22. Agreed

So sick of the damn pharma ads.

[Vinca]

31. I can get behind that!

This morning there was a nice lady in an ad pimping a drug for tardive dyskinesia - a symptom caused by other drugs. Enough already. In the real world people can't afford insulin.

[Lifelong Protester]

33. I am sick of seeing drug ads on TV

Every other ad seems to be a drug ad. Isn't this illegal in Europe?