Winmo

Prescription Drug Advertising in the 2024 Election – TV Media

In the 2024 general election, MediaRadar reported that $607 million was spent on 953,000 TV ads about prescription drugs, predominantly airing in battleground states, with Democrats more frequently discussing and criticizing the pharmaceutical industry—spending $137 million on anti-pharma ads focused on high drug costs and the opioid crisis, while COVID-19-related drugs were notably absent from political messaging.

MediaRadar has documented the extent to which pharmaceutical advertising dominates linear TV, especially during primetime. The 2024 general election saw no decrease in this trend, with prescription drug topics featuring heavily in public policy conversations on TV.

MediaRadar tracked $607 million spent on TV ads related to prescription drugs, which aired a combined total of 953,000 times. Generally, Democrats discuss prescription drugs more frequently in their ads, while Republicans mention them less often.

Where are they airing?

Prescription drug-themed ads aired most often in states that are crucial for determining control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives—specifically, DMAs in "purple" states that serve as bellwethers in national elections. The top five markets were concentrated in these battleground areas.

What are they saying?

MediaRadar also tracked political ads that targeted or attacked the pharmaceutical industry. These attacks ranged from criticism of high prescription drug costs to the industry's role in the opioid epidemic. Notably, vaccines and drugs used to combat COVID-19 did not feature in ads from either party or issue advocacy group.

A total of $137 million was spent on anti-pharmaceutical industry political ads, with over 192,000 airings. Of this spending, 83% came from Democratic politicians or PACs, compared to just 4% from Republican candidates and PACs. In terms of ad airings, Democrats accounted for 83%, Republicans for 10%, and the remainder came from issue advocacy groups with unclear party affiliation.

When examining the top markets for these ads, battleground states like Michigan and Nevada were prominent. However, the top two California DMAs also appeared, which is unusual given California's status as a "safe Democrat" state. This was due to the Democratic primary for an open US Senate seat in California in 2024.

One significant Biden administration policy victory highlighted in ads was the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain prescription drugs. Ads mentioning this policy accounted for $190 million in spending and over 200,000 airings. In contrast, ads opposing prescription drug price negotiation totaled only $722,000 in spending with just over 2,000 airings, and only 28% of that spend came from GOP candidates or PACs.

Pro-pharma ad sponsors have shifted focus to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), organizations typically operated by health insurance corporations that set pharmacy prices. In 2024, ad activity mentioning PBMs was modest, but this may increase as the Trump administration has signaled skepticism toward Medicare drug price negotiations. Issue advocacy groups referring to PBMs aired $523,000 in advertising on over 1,500 airings, primarily in Washington, DC, and on national cable.

Compounding attacks on the pharmaceutical industry in election ads were spots referencing the fentanyl crisis. While these are less direct than attacks on "big pharma," they are part of the broader conversation on opioid abuse. The 2024 elections saw $198 million spent on ads referencing fentanyl, with over 370,000 airings.

The key takeaways:

  • There is no electoral advantage to advertising support for the pharmaceutical industry.
  • Ad activity supporting the RX Drug Industry totaled $58,000 spent on 430 airings, all from non-partisan issue groups.
  • Democrats portray the industry as a bad actor against whom they represent their constituents.
  • Republicans focus relatively little messaging on the pharmaceutical topic, positive or negative.

Most ads supporting the industry or shifting blame for high drug prices onto PBMs are targeted at policymakers in DC rather than the general electorate. MediaRadar infers that the pharmaceutical industry has conceded the messaging war regarding electoral outcomes and is now focusing on courts and policymakers in DC to advance its interests.