Should Drug Companies Be Allowed an Advertising Cartel?

A more effective way to limit the [drug] ads would be for Congress to pass legislation that would allow drug companies to cooperate with one another, and with physician and patient organizations, to develop joint ad campaigns that are specific to certain diseases and conditions but not to any particular drug. These ads would inform consumers about the disease; its treatment options, including pharmaceuticals; and how to gain further information not biased toward any particular brand.

A precedent for such agreements can be found in a 1920s law, the Capper-Volstead Act, which provides an explicit legal exception to the federal antitrust laws for agricultural producers, so that they can, among other things, jointly mark their products.

But why stop there? Why not allow them to fix prices, restrict output? Divide up markets? The argument is pretty much the same. Full article on drug ads here.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joe S. says:

    I assume the title is a rhetorical question.

  2. Bruce says:

    This is a joke. A bad joke.

  3. Tom H. says:

    The answer to your question is “no.” That was easy.

  4. Jeff says:

    Remember, all these jerks supported ObamaCare. In a just world they would be nationalized.

  5. Devon Herrick says:

    1. Most of drug company marketing involves providing free samples to doctors; advertisements in medical journals and sponsoring conferences and educational dinners for medical personnel. I don’t think a drug marketing cartel is necessary (or desirable). The drug market bears no resemblance to commodity markets, where there is a cartel to promote the goods from community producers, who would have no incentive to market their own products due to homogeneity.

  6. hoads says:

    When you think about it, the whole debate on pharmaceutical drug ads is only made an issue because the government must pay for a huge portion of these drugs for Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare. Obamacare advocates have such contempt for physicians they have promoted the belief that physicians are too easily bought off by pharmaceutical companies and do not prescribe meds appropriately or that people rush out to get whatever med is advertised on TV–just ludicrous.

    However, I do think pharmaceutical pricing is heavily inflated because of 3rd party payers. Very, very few people can afford to pay even $100 a month for a needed Rx much less 2-300 which is the cost of some of the newer cardiovascular drugs, acne meds, etc.

  7. Zack says:

    this is a stupid idea. But what if you need them to help with you health, think about it.

  8. Zach Vislisel says:

    I wiull say yes and no because like i said ealier is that when you run out of money then you will plumit into a bankrupsy. We do dare and mabey about 2 or more percent will smoke later in life which is what they tell us not to do. SO NO

  9. Travis Ayers says:

    It is all about the money. If you think for one minute that pharmaceutical companies advertise because they believe it is to inform people of their options because they are concerned about the people, you are living in a fantasy world. Wake up Dorothy, you are not in Kansas anymore. They push through new drugs so fast that noone has adequate time to test them. Some result in deaths of these Americans that they are so concerned about. If the system is so great, then how is it that the U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow them to advertise?