Author: Geoff Pereira, Political Ad Insights at MediaRadar

MediaRadar has already documented the extent to which pharmaceutical advertising dominates linear TV. Primetime viewers, in particular, can expect to see it every commercial break. The TV ad wars attending this year’s general election brought no respite: The public policy conversation around prescription drugs featured heavily. 

MediaRadar tracked a whopping $607M spent on TV ads which aired a combined total of 953K times. As a general rule, Democrats love talking about prescription drugs, while Republicans touch on it less frequently. In terms of the amount of airings by sponsor see the rankings below.

Where are they airing? Delving into our data, we can discern that prescription drug themed ads aired the most often in the states that determine control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives – DMAs in “purple” states that serve as bellwethers in our national elections. The top 5 markets are as follows…

What are they saying? MediaRadar also tracked which political ads targeted and/or attacked the pharmaceutical industry. These attacks range from the high cost of prescription drugs to the role the industry played in creating the opioid epidemic. Of particular note, in the wake of the Covid pandemic: Vaccines and drugs used to combat COVID-19 did not feature in ads from either party or issue advocacy group. 

All in, we tracked $137M in spending on anti-RX industry political ads with over 192K airings of these ads. 83% of this spending came from Democrat politicians or PACs, compared to just 4% from Republican candidates and PACs. Insofar as ad airings are concerned, Dems accounted for 83% of the ad airings while the GOP made up just 10%. The remainder was aired by issue advocacy groups whose party affiliation is unclear. The top sponsors of anti-RX industry political ads are below.

When looking at the top markets in which these ads are most often aired, we can see a similar pattern to the markets listed above: “battleground” states, Michigan and Nevada. What is unusual is the appearance of the top 2 California DMAs. California is a deep blue, “safe Democrat” state that sees less contentious elections than other states. The reason for so much activity on this issue in 2024 was the Democrat primary for an open US Senate seat in California.

One major Biden administration policy victory was the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022- a provision of which enables Medicare to negotiate the price they pay for certain prescription drugs. Dovetailing with these Democrat Party critiques of the pharmaceutical industry and the prices they charge were ads mentioning this policy victory: $190M spent on over 200K airings. Ads opposing prescription drug price negotiation? $722K in spending with just over 2K airings and only 28% of that spend was from GOP candidates/PACs.

While it is politically unpalatable to air advertising supporting current RX drug pricing or to push back against Medicare negotiating the price of certain drugs, pro-pharma ad sponsors have shed light on another stakeholder in the healthcare space and blamed them for high drug prices. Over the past 2 years the pharmaceutical industry and their allies have shifted the focus to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”). 

These orgs are typically operated by health insurance corporations and they set the prices that consumers pay at pharmacies. In 2024 the ad activity mentioning PBMs was modest but we can expect to see more as the Trump administration has already signaled its wariness with Medicare drug price negotiations. Issue advocacy groups referring to PBMs aired $523K in advertising on over 1,500 airings primarily in Washington, DC and on national cable.

Compounding attacks on the pharmaceutical industry in election ads are spots referencing the fentanyl crisis. This is less clear cut than direct attacks on “big pharma” as many of the drugs laced with‌ deadly fentanyl are trafficked illicitly and consumed without the victim’s knowledge. They are, however, noteworthy as part of the broader conversation on opioid abuse.  The 2024 elections saw $198M spent on ads referencing fentanyl with over 370K airings.

The key takeaways: 

• There is no electoral advantage to advertising one’s support for the pharmaceutical industry. 
• Ad activity pertaining to outright support for the RX Drug Industry? $58K spent on 430 airings and all that activity came from non-partisan issue groups. 
• The Democrats treat the industry as a bad actor against whom they represent their constituents 
• The Republicans focus relatively little of their messaging on the Pharm topic, positive or negative.

Indeed, given that most of ads that either support the industry or seek to shift blame for high drug prices onto PBMs are targeted at policy makers in DC and not on the electorate writ large, MediaRadar can infer that they have conceded the messaging war with regard to electoral outcomes and are now focusing on the courts and policymakers in DC to win their battles.