Big Pharma: Side Effects Include Bankruptcy and Bullsh*t

Ask Your Doctor If Paying Rent Is Still an Option

"Do you suffer from Uncontrolled Pharmaceutical Marketing Syndrome?"

 "Each year, millions are exposed to excessive drug commercials... with side effects that include confusion, bloated premiums, and a false sense of medical urgency."

"But now, there's hope."

"Introducing Marketrex™, the first executive action formulated to fight overactive marketing budgets."

"In clinical trials, Marketrex™ slashed DTC ad spending by up to 80%, while improving transparency and reducing sticker shock."

(Fast disclaimer voice): "Side effects may include: industry tantrums, cable news ad revenue loss, and brief symptoms of bipartisan cooperation."

"Ask your president if Marketrex™ is right for you. Because the cure for high drug prices might just start with how we sell them."

Text on screen: "Marketrex™. End the ad. Heal the system."

"Do not use Marketrex™ if you are currently benefiting from SuperPACs or pharma stock dividends."

Want to know a dirty little secret?

The outrageous price Americans pay for prescription drugs isn’t just Big Pharma being greedy. It’s those glossy, unskippable TV ads we all mute on sight.

In case you missed it—and for your sanity, I hope you did—the dime-store Mussolini spent Sunday night rage-posting about his predecessors and announcing, via tweet, a shiny new policy: Americans should pay the “lowest price” globally for drugs.

That’s it. No plan. No pathway. Just a royal decree. Delivered in his usual word-salad dialect of CAPS LOCK English that gives editors migraines. (My count: a dozen grammar crimes, including referring to the country he leads as the “United States States.”)

But here’s the kicker: the order is meaningless. We didn’t stumble into sky-high drug prices—we built them. Brick by brick. Ad by ad. Lobbyist by lobbyist. We didn’t just feed the beast—we gave it a microphone and a billion-dollar marketing budget.

We Built This Monster, Then Gave It a Jingle

And we knew better. That’s the galling part. The U.S. is one of just two countries on Earth that allows direct-to-consumer drug ads. The other is New Zealand—where the same drugs often cost a third as much because the government negotiates the prices for consumers.

So how did we get here?

It started in the late ’90s when the FDA loosened the reins on pharmaceutical advertising. That unleashed a vicious cycle of pharma companies being free to increase their profits, while driving demand through marketing. Ever since, American airwaves have been flooded with gauzy montages of boomers playing pickleball while a narrator speed-whispers side effects that include death.

And as reliably as narcissism flows from Trump, the ad dollars followed. In 2023 alone, the top 10 pharma companies spent $13.8 billion on marketing in the U.S.—more than five times what the entire retail industry shelled out.

It’s not just TV anymore. Pharma now drops over $20 billion a year on digital ads, plus another $3.4 billion on linear TV just in the first eight months of 2024.

Sure, that means tens of thousands of jobs for ad agencies. (I had one of them.) But where do you think that money comes from?

Your premiums. Your copays. Your tax dollars. When a pill costs $7.78 in the U.S. and $2.21 in New Zealand, it’s not because we’re subsidizing innovation. We’re subsidizing advertising.

Trump’s post frames this as a betrayal by Big Pharma. And yes, the industry has played every dirty trick in the book—lobbying, shadow pricing, campaign donations.

All Hype, No Results

But every president since Clinton has either tolerated or actively embraced the idea that medicine should be sold like deodorant. Republican or Democrat, they all helped build a system where no new drug is “launched” until it’s aired during the Super Bowl.

What have we gotten for this marketing arms race? Not better health.

The U.S. ranks dead last among G7 countries in life expectancy—despite leading the world in health and drug spending. Rates of chronic disease, infant mortality, and preventable deaths are higher here than in countries that ban drug ads outright.

And despite the 24/7 ad blitz—or maybe because of it—1 in 4 Americans still skip doses or leave prescriptions unfilled because they just can’t afford them.

So no, Trump’s executive order won’t fix any of this.

You can’t lower drug prices while propping up the system that made them expensive. This isn’t reform—it’s a headline. Telling Americans they’ll get “the lowest price” is like promising cheap rent in a city already owned by developers who set the rules.

This Isn’t Reform—It’s a Press Release

We don’t need another PR stunt. We need structural reform:

• Ban direct-to-consumer drug ads.

• Let Medicare negotiate drug prices.

• Cap marketing expenses like we do administrative costs.

• Fund health outcomes—not ad impressions.

Let’s be clear: Trump didn’t “take on Big Pharma.” He helped crown it. And now he wants credit for trimming the throne.

If we’re serious about fairness, we have to stop treating the pharmaceutical industry like a lifestyle brand.

Drugs aren’t sneakers. They’re not streaming services. And they sure as hell shouldn’t be sold with soft-focus lighting and a two-minute legal disclaimer.

Until we dismantle the advertising-industrial complex that props up this system, every promise to “cut prices” is just campaign copy—wrapped in the same branding logic that made your meds unaffordable in the first place.