It’s an argument we’ve all heard before, and it seems to pop up every few months: that the drug ads on TV are “out of control,” pushing people to get prescriptions they don’t need and making healthcare more expensive. Dr. Marty Makary recently brought it up again, suggesting these commercials manipulate us into demanding the latest pill from our doctors.
It’s a story that sounds right—until you look at the data, how patients actually behave, and how doctors make decisions in the real world.
First, let’s get rid of the idea that people see a 60-second ad and immediately march into their doctor’s office demanding a prescription. The evidence just isn’t there. Studies show that only a tiny fraction of patients—between 3% and 7%—ask for a specific drug after seeing an ad. And when they do ask, it’s usually because they’ve been dealing with symptoms for a while and are looking for information, not just a pill.
Doctors will tell you they prescribe based on a patient’s health, not a request inspired by a commercial. If a drug isn’t the right fit, they say no. It happens all the time. If these ads were really pulling the strings, we’d see a vast, corresponding spike in bad prescriptions, and that spike doesn’t exist.
What often gets ignored is the good these ads can do. For many people, a commercial is the first time they connect their symptoms to a real, treatable condition. Think about how many chronic diseases are underdiagnosed in this country: diabetes, heart disease, depression, and autoimmune disorders. People often suffer for years, thinking what they’re feeling is just normal. An ad can be the nudge they need to talk to a doctor finally.
These ads start conversations, not just prescriptions. For diseases with low public awareness but serious consequences—like hepatitis C, psoriasis, or even some forms of cancer—advertising has been shown to boost screening, improve diagnosis rates, and get people into treatment sooner. That’s not a system “out of control”; that’s public health education, paid for by the industry instead of taxpayers.
It’s also worth remembering that these ads are already under a microscope. Pharmaceutical advertising is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. Every ad has to balance the benefits with the risks and stick to the facts approved by the FDA. They go through layers of medical and legal review before they ever reach your screen. This isn’t the Wild West; companies face serious consequences if they cross the line.
One of the biggest myths is that ads create more patients. The research shows that’s not what happens. Instead, they tend to shift market share between similar drugs or encourage people already on a medication to consider a newer, more effective option. They don’t meaningfully increase the total number of people taking a medicine for a condition. Besides, with insurance hurdles like prior authorizations and step therapy, there are already powerful brakes on inappropriate prescribing.
If we’re genuinely worried about healthcare costs, blaming TV commercials is like blaming a leaky faucet for a flood. Let’s talk about the fundamental drivers: hospital monopolies, confusing PBM rebate systems, and endless administrative bloat. All of pharma advertising put together accounts for less than 1% of what the U.S. spends on healthcare. Getting rid of it wouldn’t make a dent.
So what would happen if we did ban these ads? Only the U.S. and New Zealand allow them, so we can guess. Patient awareness would drop. Fewer people would get screened for preventable diseases. Diagnoses would be delayed. We’d be trading a scapegoat for a set of very real problems.
Drug ads aren’t perfect, but they’re not the villain they’re made out to be. They don’t hijack a doctor’s judgment or turn patients into puppets. They help fill a knowledge gap, getting people to think about their health and start a conversation. Patients are smarter than that, and doctors are professionals. In a complicated healthcare system, these ads are one way—flaws and all—that critical information gets out.
