Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:17 PM Jan 2019

So taxpayers are subsidizing Big Pharma's TV advertising

I had no idea until I got an email yesterday from my senator, Jeanne Shaheen. It is bad enough that we get bombarded with these annoying and often misleading ads night and day, but apparently we are helping to finance them as well. As if the out of control drug price increases weren't enough! Could they get any greedier?

Have you noticed how it seems like every time you turn on your TV there’s an ad for another prescription drug? Drug companies are spending billions on these ads and inundating the airwaves. This aggressive advertising increases demand so that drug companies can continue to hike up drug prices. Meanwhile, many Granite Staters, particularly seniors, are having to make tough choices, often having to choose between expenses like bills and groceries, and the medications they desperately need.

What’s worse, taxpayers are subsidizing these Big Pharma ad campaigns. Through a loophole in the tax code, drug companies are allowed to deduct the cost of advertising expenses from their federal taxes. This scheme yields an incredible windfall for the drug companies and it needs to end. That’s why today, I introduced legislation, the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Ads Act, to close this egregious loophole in the tax code. It’s long past time that Congress and the Trump administration get serious about addressing prescription drug costs, and this legislation would be a big first step forward. I’ll continue to update you as I rally support for this legislation in Congress.


This is one of many reasons why we need Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, as well as a progressive in the White House.

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So taxpayers are subsidizing Big Pharma's TV advertising (Original Post) PatSeg Jan 2019 OP
"Could they get any greedier?" volstork Jan 2019 #1
Yes, sadly it is true PatSeg Jan 2019 #5
Can politicians obfuscate any more? Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2019 #41
This is a very important post malaise Jan 2019 #2
Seventeen drug ads on television in one half hour evening show. EarnestPutz Jan 2019 #3
Seventeen??? PatSeg Jan 2019 #6
Most not covered by insurance and are pay out of pocket. Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 2019 #7
And you can't blame many insurance companies PatSeg Jan 2019 #16
I blame insurance companies for what they have created for all of us... Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 2019 #21
Oh no, I'm not defending the insurance companies PatSeg Jan 2019 #40
Yes and no jberryhill Jan 2019 #50
K & R....for visibility..... dhill926 Jan 2019 #4
Aren't all types of businesses allowed Sucha NastyWoman Jan 2019 #8
Yes--Advertising is a 100% write off to all businesses. mtngirl47 Jan 2019 #20
I did not know that FiveGoodMen Jan 2019 #63
It's an expense - like any other expense jberryhill Jan 2019 #64
K & R pandr32 Jan 2019 #9
EVERY company has this "loophole" because it is a bullshit claim jberryhill Jan 2019 #48
Many (most) of those ads are aimed at senior citizens FakeNoose Jan 2019 #10
Since cutting the cable cord shanti Jan 2019 #19
Follow the money Pantagruel Jan 2019 #11
It's not just TV. Leaf through monthly magazines luvtheGWN Jan 2019 #12
More like 'research and deveopment' PatSeg Jan 2019 #14
My favorite ones are when they are tearing through the side effects, House of Roberts Jan 2019 #22
It is jberryhill Jan 2019 #33
Not exactly a pleasant visual!!! PatSeg Jan 2019 #44
No wonder we get a barrage of ads. They spend other people's money. What a PR cash cow. ancianita Jan 2019 #13
Is that really a loophole? TheFarseer Jan 2019 #15
That did occur to me PatSeg Jan 2019 #42
You could say the same thing about automobiles jberryhill Jan 2019 #51
Healthcare has always been considered PatSeg Jan 2019 #54
What is it we disagree about? jberryhill Jan 2019 #57
Okay, that is where I can agree with you PatSeg Jan 2019 #59
"I come from an era" jberryhill Jan 2019 #61
Much older than you PatSeg Jan 2019 #65
Advertising isn't a special loophole zaj Jan 2019 #17
I agree. StatGirl Jan 2019 #55
The US & New Zealand area51 Jan 2019 #18
I thought advertising was a standard business expense that's tax deductible? CaptainTruth Jan 2019 #23
Yeah, something's fishy about that quote in OP. Not enough information to make any case. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2019 #39
That came from Shaheen's email PatSeg Jan 2019 #46
That's really deceptively worded jberryhill Jan 2019 #49
Yup. It is anti-progressive to use dishonestly deceptive wording for progressive causes. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2019 #56
K & R mountain grammy Jan 2019 #24
Yes we do duforsure Jan 2019 #25
Personally i think direct to consumer advertising of drugs should be prohibited. CaptainTruth Jan 2019 #26
Kick dalton99a Jan 2019 #27
All pharma ads should be banned from media. nt mastermind Jan 2019 #28
Are you f'ing kidding me?! What's the loophole? How didit get there? I wanna know the details. KPN Jan 2019 #29
The loophole is that businesses deduct expenses jberryhill Jan 2019 #30
That's exactly what I figured. If we can regulate tobacco tv ads out of existence on the basis of KPN Jan 2019 #32
Because consumers can't buy their products on their own authority? fleabiscuit Jan 2019 #35
I'd bet half the people watching football can't buy beer jberryhill Jan 2019 #37
Non Sequitur. fleabiscuit Jan 2019 #66
How Big Pharma buys the government.... safeinOhio Jan 2019 #31
Close the loophole!!!! That's outrageous! nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #34
There is no loophole jberryhill Jan 2019 #47
Ahhh. I see. Thx. nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #62
I think it is interesting that the drugs to give you "clear skin" can lead to demigoddess Jan 2019 #36
Subsidizing? Like taxpayers subsidize Ford & Momsy's Pie Cafe & TidyBowl advertising? Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2019 #38
I get depressed watching antidepressant ads... backtoblue Jan 2019 #43
the cost has been ahead of inflation for over 40 years sigpooie Jan 2019 #45
If a business deducting the cost of advertising constitutes a "government subsidy"... PoliticAverse Jan 2019 #52
It should be changed sigpooie Jan 2019 #53
What? jberryhill Jan 2019 #58
Just another reason to quit television. hunter Jan 2019 #60
K&R Scurrilous Jan 2019 #67
It's OBSCENE that they Raine Jan 2019 #68
I agree PatSeg Jan 2019 #69

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,790 posts)
41. Can politicians obfuscate any more?
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:21 PM
Jan 2019

If companies can legally advertise then they can legally deduct advertising expenses.

If you don't want Pharma to deduct it then you have to legally prohibit them from advertising. How do you expect that to pass constitutional muster?

Fundraising & politicking on a murky shaky foggy basis is not a good long range strategy for political success because the fog will end up being dispersed and if the ground is shaky then any legislation built on it will fail.

EarnestPutz

(2,087 posts)
3. Seventeen drug ads on television in one half hour evening show.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:33 PM
Jan 2019

Fifty-six different drugs advertised over a nine month period (I've been
writing them down since last April). And we're paying for them? Give me
a break.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
6. Seventeen???
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:56 PM
Jan 2019

I knew it was outrageous, but I had no idea how bad it was because I grab the remote and hit fast-forward as quickly as I can. I can't stand the commercials as they often seem to be selling disease, not health.

I do find it rather amusing that six to twelve months after a new expensive drug is advertised, we start to see commercials from law firms about class action suits against that drug. The least surprising were the Low-T drugs that were applied like deodorant, but had horrifying side effects.

I am old enough to remember when drugs companies, doctors, hospitals, and health insurance companies were not allowed by law to advertise. This is what happens when corporate money is allowed in politics.

Crutchez_CuiBono

(7,725 posts)
7. Most not covered by insurance and are pay out of pocket.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:56 PM
Jan 2019

Many of these are "no guarantee" to cure as well. It's relentless. If you aren't sick at 430pm...you may be at 11....and really...you're the ame person you were at 430. Planting seeds.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
16. And you can't blame many insurance companies
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:18 PM
Jan 2019

for not wanting to pay these ridiculous inflated prices, when there often cheaper alternatives that have been around for years.

Crutchez_CuiBono

(7,725 posts)
21. I blame insurance companies for what they have created for all of us...
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:40 PM
Jan 2019

for profit healthcare. No sympathy from me for insurance companies. (The same ones who raised prices themselves after O care and got everyone pissed off as if the whole thing was bad.)
But, i'm not blaming you for bringing it up. It's your OP. Have a good weekend. It's possible.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
40. Oh no, I'm not defending the insurance companies
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:19 PM
Jan 2019

I just understand their reluctance to pay the high prescription drug prices.

I realize that if we look at the history of healthcare in this country, the existence of private healthcare insurance was the initial cause of the out-of-control costs. At one time, they were quite efficient and paid most expenses, but many hospitals and doctors got greedy and took advantage of the insurance, often performing unnecessary procedures, surgeries, and tests. Sometimes just charging for things they never even provided. For profit insurance companies were equally greedy and fought back, leaving the patient in the middle struggling to survive.

We need to take the profit motive and shareholders out of healthcare, like other developed nations. As for insurance, I think it is necessary for unforeseen disasters like automobile accidents or house fires, but it really has no place in healthcare, as healthcare is an ongoing necessity in people's lives. Not everyone will experience loss from a house fire, but everyone will need medical care in their life.

Having a good weekend these days gets harder all the time, as Trump never sleeps and never shuts up, but I will try!

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
50. Yes and no
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:47 PM
Jan 2019

One of the problems with the ACA is that it incentivizes insurance companies to increase costs, since their profit is capped at a percentage of costs.

It's like hiring a broker to buy you something and having them get paid a percentage commission on the sale price, instead of a percentage commission for the difference between a sale price and some higher figure. The incentive is wrong.

mtngirl47

(985 posts)
20. Yes--Advertising is a 100% write off to all businesses.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:33 PM
Jan 2019

Madison Avenue will lobby against any changes---and Schumer will support Madison Avenue.

Instead of changing the tax laws the FDA should change laws so that prescription medication cannot be advertised.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
64. It's an expense - like any other expense
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 06:33 PM
Jan 2019

Nobody is going to sell much if there is no way to tell the public what they have to sell, as a general proposition.

Are there other categories of business expenses that businesses should not be able to count against revenues?
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
48. EVERY company has this "loophole" because it is a bullshit claim
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:40 PM
Jan 2019

My company has this "loophole" and so does every other company.

The "loophole" is that expenses are deductible.

By that measure, taxpayers are "subsidizing" the coffee machine at their offices too, along with every other business expense.

FakeNoose

(32,356 posts)
10. Many (most) of those ads are aimed at senior citizens
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:02 PM
Jan 2019

The pharmaceutical ads that I see on TV are mostly aired during local and national news shows. They know that seniors are more likely to watch televised news and many people plan their evening activities (dinnertime etc.) around them. Seniors have frequent visits to doctors and are more likely to be covered under Medicare or other insurance. Seniors are more likely to "self-diagnose" by identifying with the actors on the screen, and they're more likely to request the Rx from their doctor by brand name. (That's nirvana for the Big Pharma companies!)

Personally I have always objected to these drug ads masquerading as info-mercials but I've just learned to tune them out. I can't even tell you the brand names of the drugs that are on the current rotation of ads. But it's certain that the news networks LO-O-OVE these spots, and they've worked with Big Pharma to get as much bang for their buck as possible. There is way too much money involved for the networks and the pharmaceuticals to let this be killed off.

shanti

(21,672 posts)
19. Since cutting the cable cord
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:24 PM
Jan 2019

and going to streaming content, I no longer have the ability to ff thru the ads, which sucks bigtime. The only thing I can do is mute them.

And don't get me started on how PBS has changed for the worse. The quality of the content is not what it once was, and yes, they also have ads.

 

Pantagruel

(2,580 posts)
11. Follow the money
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:06 PM
Jan 2019

Advertising dollars go directly to the media. And since Citizens United it's worse with political ads than drugs.Neither will stop as long as it benefits media outlets. Any politician that tries to stop the practice will be demonized by media seeking to protect their best revenue sources.

luvtheGWN

(1,336 posts)
12. It's not just TV. Leaf through monthly magazines
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:08 PM
Jan 2019

like Good Housekeeping and check out the number of pages devoted to ads, plus a full page listing possible side effects etc.

Canada halted prescription drug advertising many years ago, although some are allowed (Cialis, Viagra) but the spots are not allowed to say what the drugs are used for (some of them are hilarious, actually!!). OTC drugs ads are allowed.

My late husband, after watching US TV drugs ads that always mention possible side effects, used to add, at the end of that long list "and death".

Big Pharma always talk about research and development as the reason for the high cost of their products in the US. However, I have read that upwards of 80% of their expenses is spent on advertising.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
14. More like 'research and deveopment'
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:14 PM
Jan 2019

into marketing tactics and how to get the most money out of any drug. Then they take a drug that has been around for decades, make a slight change, and acquire a new patent so they can jack up the price to compete with the generic version. They have to advertise the "new" drug and push it to doctors and hospitals as well, even though the old drug worked just fine.

House of Roberts

(5,122 posts)
22. My favorite ones are when they are tearing through the side effects,
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:45 PM
Jan 2019

and they put diarrhea just before vomiting, so it sounds like it is one side effect, diarrhea vomiting.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
44. Not exactly a pleasant visual!!!
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:30 PM
Jan 2019

Though I have to say that some of the ads are so ridiculous that I laugh out loud. I never caught the "diarrhea vomiting" one though.
They often come across more like a Saturday Night Live sketch than a real ad.

TheFarseer

(9,308 posts)
15. Is that really a loophole?
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:16 PM
Jan 2019

Why would a company not be able to take advertising as an expense reducing net income on their taxes?

I’ll definitely hear arguments that they should not be allowed to advertise in this way but the tax argument is just weird to me.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
42. That did occur to me
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:25 PM
Jan 2019

but anything related to healthcare often has stricter rules and guidelines. The consumer should not have to pay both increased drug prices and the cost of advertising them both in taxes write-offs AND higher prices.

Of course, the answer is not to allow them to advertise directly to the consumer and reasonable regulation of drug prices.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
51. You could say the same thing about automobiles
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:50 PM
Jan 2019

Taxpayers bailed out the auto industry and the automakers deduct the cost of their advertising, which is built into the price of cars.

"The consumer should not have to pay both increased drug prices and the cost of advertising them both in taxes write-offs AND higher prices."

To what industry does that same reasoning not apply?

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
54. Healthcare has always been considered
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:58 PM
Jan 2019

different from other businesses. It is considered a vital and necessary service and historically it often operated under different guidelines and rules.

Not all businesses are the same and regulations vary depending on the nature of the business. Until recently, healthcare was not considered a profit oriented business.

Though I understand your argument, I also understand where Shaheen is coming from and I think it is a baby step in the right direction. Meanwhile, we can agree to disagree.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
57. What is it we disagree about?
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:47 PM
Jan 2019

I'm not even sure what it is we disagree about.

The piece is deceptively written. If someone wants to argue for a special provision under which prescription pharmaceutical advertising is not a deductible business expense, then they should do so honestly, and not act as if it is a "loophole" or special benefit to them of some kind.

Secondly, the pharmaceutical business has never been considered to be anything other than a profit making business. Or do you also have an issue with advertising of over-the-counter medications as well?

But if the issue is "healthcare advertising" more broadly, then I see advertisements for hospitals and medical practices on television all of the time. I see advertisements for cancer treatment centers, and other specialty medical services. Why should they be excluded from the same effort? I also see advertisements for health insurance.

Since your point is about "healthcare", then surely you agree that Shaheen does not go far enough here, and that the elimination of the deductibility of advertising expenses should go for ALL "healthcare" businesses. Correct?

Or are doctors and hospitals not, in your opinion, "vital and necessary services" which operate under heavy regulation?

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
59. Okay, that is where I can agree with you
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:07 PM
Jan 2019

When you talk about ALL healthcare businesses, but you have to understand that I come from an era where treatment centers, medical practices, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals, and health insurance were not allowed to advertise. They were considered services, not profit oriented businesses and the guidelines were stricter for them than other businesses. The standards were much higher.

Over the counter medications did not fall in the same category, which no one had a problem with.

As for pharmaceuticals, much of the research and development was done by the government or universities. When I was young, no drug company was making obscenely huge profits. They provided a needed service and were compensated accordingly.

I just don't find Shaheen's wording really all that deceptive and like I said, I think this is a first step to much needed change in healthcare in this country. Ideally, someday we will have universal healthcare with pricing limits on drugs and services, pretty much like most developing nations have. That is why in order to survive, I have to buy most of my prescription drugs from overseas. For instance, I can get a $385 inhaler for $35, which is closer to what it sold for here just ten years ago.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
61. "I come from an era"
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:55 PM
Jan 2019

I'm not sure when you were young, but I'm closer to 60 than 50, so I'm not sure where all that is coming from.

Bayer, Sandoz, Merck, Wyeth, Upjohn, Abbot, Lilly, Glaxo, Smith Kline and a host of others since merged (including several of these), were always extremely profitable companies. I have utterly no idea where you could have gotten the impression that they were ever anything but highly profitable. While there has always been government-funded research, these companies have always had large research departments and made enormous profits on the exclusive rights obtained on their patented medications.

This tale you are spinning, on some odd notion that I'm a youngster, is simply not true. They have had aggressive marketing programs for a very long time, and certainly going back to the 1950's.

HUGELY profitable drugs were exclusively marketed by pharma companies during any time you have credibly been alive.

Thalidomide is one of the greatest examples of pharma greed over safety - and that was in the 1960's - by its exclusive US marketer, Smith Kline.

And who can forget the only drug ever advertised by the Rolling Stones - "Mother's Little Helper":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meprobamate

In May 1950, after moving to Carter Products in New Jersey, Berger and a chemist, Bernard John Ludwig, synthesized a chemically related tranquilizing compound, meprobamate, that was able to overcome these three drawbacks.[3] Wallace Laboratories, a subsidiary of Carter Products, bought the license and named their new product "Miltown" after the borough of Milltown, New Jersey. Launched in 1955, it rapidly became the first blockbuster psychotropic drug in American history, becoming popular in Hollywood and gaining notoriety for its seemingly miraculous effects.

You must not have grown up in this country, because pharma companies touting regular new "wonder drugs" (Haldol being another good example) have been a regular feature of the US medical industry since well before WWII.

So, I'm not sure about what "era" you come from. But in my era, G.D. Searle made a mint in the 1960's by introducing this:



It was hugely profitable.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
65. Much older than you
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:27 PM
Jan 2019

and I can assure it was NOTHING like it is now, not even close. I suppose if they had been allowed to advertise, it might have been worse. Yes there were dangerous drugs on the market. That seems to have been with us as long as there have been drug companies. I've been on the receiving end of potentially fatal medications more than once.

"Hugely profitable" in the 1950s and 1960s was nothing compared to "hugely profitable" today. Big Pharma has learned a lot of new tricks since then, they bought more politicians, infiltrated the FDA, compromised hospitals and doctors, AND bombarded us shamelessly with advertisements. Their nature may have not changed, but there was a time when government oversight and regulations were much stricter and believe or not, most people could afford their medications.

I'm certainly not defending drug companies from years ago, I'm defending the government who exerted more control and oversight over them. The same with the financial world. There were actually laws that prevented meltdowns like 2008 and some people really did go to jail when they didn't play by the rules. I was there and lived with the pressure of SEC rules. AND when I went home there were no commercials for drugs, doctors, hospitals, medical centers, medical devices, or medical insurance. It was not perfect, but a far cry from what we are living with today.

I'm getting tired, so I'll wish you a good night and a happy weekend!

StatGirl

(518 posts)
55. I agree.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:32 PM
Jan 2019

I'm having trouble drumming up any outrage over this "loophole".

But I'm fine if the FDA wants to curtail pharmaceutical direct advertising to consumers.

CaptainTruth

(6,546 posts)
23. I thought advertising was a standard business expense that's tax deductible?
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:46 PM
Jan 2019

I know I've been deducting advertising expenses for my business every year I've been in business.

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
46. That came from Shaheen's email
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:37 PM
Jan 2019

Here is her press release and there are numerous other articles from newspapers as well.

(Washington, DC) – This week, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the End Taxpayers Subsidies for Drug Ads Act with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). The bill would eliminate the tax deduction for big pharmaceutical companies’ advertising costs, which is currently subsidized by American taxpayers. Taxpayers fund billions of dollars in television, online, magazine, and other direct-to-consumer advertising that drug companies use to promote their products. Unfortunately, these expenses are fully deductible costs come tax time for pharmaceutical companies, all while those companies continue to raise the cost of prescription drug costs.

“It is completely backward that middle-class families are footing the bill so big pharmaceutical companies can enjoy a tax break,” said Senator Shaheen. “Too many American families struggle to afford necessary medications for chronic conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure, and too many of our first responders on the frontlines of the opioid epidemic worry about having access to live-saving opioid overdose antidotes like Naloxone, which have exploded in price. This is a commonsense bill that will set priorities straight and hold big pharmaceutical companies financially responsible for their own advertising expenditures and relieve American taxpayers of an unnecessary and unfair fiscal burden.”

Shaheen has long fought to combat rising drug prices, which hurt every day Americans struggling to afford the medication they need, as well as first responders in New Hampshire who carry Naloxone, the antidote that reverses opioid overdoses. A package of Evzio, a branded version of Naloxone that is manufactured by Kaleo, cost $690 in 2014 but rocketed to $4,500 in 2017 – a price increase of more than 500 percent. Just last month, Senator Shaheen spoke on the Senate floor and urged her Senate colleagues to vote against confirming Alex Azar as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in part, due to his history as a pharmaceutical executive where he opposed government regulations on drug pricing and saw net prices of pharmaceuticals manufactured by his former company increase by double digit percentages. Shaheen previously backed bipartisan legislation to help reduce the costs of prescription drugs, which was introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John McCain (R-AZ).


https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/shaheen-introduces-bill-to-repeal-tax-break-for-big-pharma-companies-paid-for-by-american-taxpayers


 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
49. That's really deceptively worded
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:43 PM
Jan 2019

There is not some special exemption that drug companies have for advertising.

This is advocacy for a special rule making them unable to deduct the cost of that advertising - which is something EVERY and ANY business can do and does.

If she wants to eliminate consumer prescription drug advertising, that's a fine thing for which to argue. But to go around making it seem as if they are getting some kind of special break here is not really honest.

duforsure

(11,882 posts)
25. Yes we do
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:51 PM
Jan 2019

And all their lobbying, and their running ads 24/7 on the TV. Why should we pay for all that? It also drives prices higher.

CaptainTruth

(6,546 posts)
26. Personally i think direct to consumer advertising of drugs should be prohibited.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:51 PM
Jan 2019

The average consumer (without a medical degree) is in no position to decide what prescription drugs are best for them.

KPN

(15,587 posts)
29. Are you f'ing kidding me?! What's the loophole? How didit get there? I wanna know the details.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:59 PM
Jan 2019

I know. Google it. I will.

If this is an accurate portrayal:

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
30. The loophole is that businesses deduct expenses
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:10 PM
Jan 2019

It's not so much of a "loophole" as "how tax works".

McGaskill, Franken, and Clinton have, in the past, proposed a specific exception to disallow deductibility of advertising expenses for prescription medications.

If one wants to argue that there should be no direct to consumer advertising for prescription meds, that's a fine position to take. But why one industry should be singled out among others on deductibility of an ordinary business expense hasn't really been explained.

KPN

(15,587 posts)
32. That's exactly what I figured. If we can regulate tobacco tv ads out of existence on the basis of
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:17 PM
Jan 2019

public health concerns, we should be able to do this as well. Lots of support within the medical community for doing this, i.e., patients demanding and eventually obtaining prescriptions based on tv ads, i.e., self-prescribing controlled medications without the requisite expertise.

safeinOhio

(32,532 posts)
31. How Big Pharma buys the government....
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:13 PM
Jan 2019

In this report, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) examines how the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying activity has responded to the growing possibility that legislators may take action to rein in the cost of prescription drugs. First, we explore the size of the drug pricing lobby by examining lobbying records for mentions of drug pricing and other similar search terms. We found that lobbying on this issue has dramatically increased over the past decade. CREW found 153 different companies and organizations that reported some variation of the term “drug pricing” on their federal lobbying disclosures during the first three quarters of 2017. This number has more than quadrupled over the past five years. Twenty-two of Forbes magazine’s top 25 largest drug and biotech companies in the world were found to have lobbied on some variation of the term “drug pricing.” Collectively, these 22 companies spent more than $80 million on lobbying during this period.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/a-bitter-pill-how-big-pharma-lobbies-to-keep-prescription-drug-prices-high/

Please read

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
47. There is no loophole
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:38 PM
Jan 2019

Any business deducts advertising as an expense.

This piece is advocating for a special provision singling out the pharmaceutical industry to be unable to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising expenses.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,790 posts)
38. Subsidizing? Like taxpayers subsidize Ford & Momsy's Pie Cafe & TidyBowl advertising?
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:15 PM
Jan 2019

As I understand it, ALL companies "deduct the cost of advertising expenses from their federal taxes".

1) Shaheen is using weasel-wording, being (deliberately?) ambiguous. She probably means deducted from taxable income before that income figure is used; NOT taxes. The way it is written makes it sound like it is deducted from the taxes payable after calculations as percentages of income.

2) Business expenses include the cost of advertising. Business expenses are deducted from business revenue to determine profit which is what is taxable. Aren't all businesses treated this way.

backtoblue

(11,324 posts)
43. I get depressed watching antidepressant ads...
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:25 PM
Jan 2019

"Do you feel tired? Don't wanna get out if bed? Do you want to feel like you're twenty again?...."

And if you take this, you may have anal seepage (smelly jelly), heart problems, kidney problems, liver problems, and of course the dreaded sudden death...

sigpooie

(106 posts)
45. the cost has been ahead of inflation for over 40 years
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:31 PM
Jan 2019

It's time to implement a law that makes all companies keep there price increases inline with what the rest of us make. Based on inflation a doctor visit would be about 800% lower and drugs would cost 2000% less If they do not, we soon will be working without them as our providers.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
52. If a business deducting the cost of advertising constitutes a "government subsidy"...
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:50 PM
Jan 2019

why shouldn't it be eliminated for all businesses?

sigpooie

(106 posts)
53. It should be changed
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:58 PM
Jan 2019

To a more equitable system. Right now it just helps the rich get more ahead of the rest of us. And without it the cost of ads would drop considerably.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
58. What?
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:49 PM
Jan 2019

How does the fact that a business can deduct a business expense help "the rich get more ahead of the rest of us"?

hunter

(38,264 posts)
60. Just another reason to quit television.
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:07 PM
Jan 2019

I never see these ads. My television plays DVDs and Netflix. That's all it does.

If I was Emperor of Earth, advertising prescription drugs on television would be a felony. Quite a few pharmaceutical corporation execs would be sharing prison cells with guys who who were caught selling dirty heroin and meth on the streets.

Raine

(30,540 posts)
68. It's OBSCENE that they
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 06:25 AM
Jan 2019

are getting away with this, they should never have been allowed to advertise on TV..

PatSeg

(46,807 posts)
69. I agree
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 10:54 AM
Jan 2019

When I was young, doctors, hospitals, medical insurance, and prescription drugs were not allowed to advertise. They were held to a higher standard and obviously with good reason.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So taxpayers are subsidiz...