$36 Billion of Influence: Big Pharma’s Hold on America
In this episode of Breaking Battlegrounds, former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, now a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance, pulls back the curtain on the staggering influence Big Pharma has over consumers, the media, and Washington.
Hayworth reveals that pharmaceutical companies spend $36 billion annually on direct-to-consumer marketing, much of it on TV ads that dominate primetime viewing and sports programming. He argues that these ads are designed not for education, but to drive patient demand—even for drugs of questionable value—by pressuring doctors through consumer requests.
The conversation also dives into Big Pharma’s $5 billion lobbying campaign over 11 years, along with billions more funneled into so-called “patient advocacy” groups. Hayworth describes this as a form of political “ventriloquism,” manipulating public opinion while disguising corporate interests as grassroots support.
Listeners are left questioning: Are these ads about health—or control?
Transcript
Sam Stone: Continuing on now with our interview with former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, currently spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance.
Chuck Warren: So, J.D., in the last segment, you said the pharmaceutical industry spends $35 billion on TV advertisements. Was that correct? Was that the right number?
Congressman J.D Hayworth: $36 billion direct-to-consumer marketing. But most of that.
Chuck Warren: With a B. With a B.
Sam Stone: So a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking real money.
Chuck Warren: Exactly.
Congressman J.D Hayworth: Ev Dirksen. We're bringing him back. That's good. Yeah.
Chuck Warren: One of the running jokes in this country when you talk to people, social media has a lot, is just making fun of these pharmaceutical ads. I have a really hard time believing these ads sometimes make sales, but obviously they have to. Am I wrong? Do these ads really go and increase sales?
Are they simply buying access to the networks and cable stations to frame the message? What is the purpose of these ads?
Congressman J.D Hayworth: Well, these ads are to have drug consumers... go in and specifically ask their physician for the products they see. And there have been other studies. Let me see if I can see this. Certainly, I'm no scientist. Well, I'm a political scientist, which people think is kind of oxymoronic, or at least a poli-sci major.
And speech, so you got the twin, the doubleheader for me. But what they are finding is that the drugs that are marketed a lot of them are of questionable therapeutic value but uh among for example medicare patients uh there has been a correlation between uh people going in and demanding these drugs that are mentioned on television.
And when you think about it, and for purposes of full disclosure, we'll be honest, we all have been involved in campaigns and elections. What's the bottom line with television advertising? Gross rating points. Take a look at the amount of time. Somebody did a study. When you sit down to watch TV for, let's say,
an hour to two hours, you're going to get probably about nine minutes of pharmaceutical ads. Somebody's projected that over a year, it's like literally two weeks out of your life, maybe a couple of days more.
Sam Stone: Chuck and I are sports fans, it's more.
Congressman J.D Hayworth: Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Boy, gosh, you watch the studio shows now. And they're doing stuff that you go, well, gee, is this really to a sports audience? Why? Because they've got the money to do it. Pardon the pun. They're covering all the bases demographically, attitudinally, and trying to hit everybody, and they have the money to do it.
I didn't even get into what they're spending on the Hill, according to that Make America Healthy Again report.
Chuck Warren: What are they spending? What are they spending on the Hill?
Congressman J.D Hayworth: Well, this past year, they spent upwards of $13 million in the first quarter of this year alone. But understand, take it over an 11-year period, beginning, well, admittedly, when I was in Congress, about 1999 on through 2018, They spent $5 billion, primarily on Capitol Hill, but also at the state level, and billions more, billions with a B.
Billions more setting up, quote, patient advocacy groups to prime the pump for a certain debate and a certain... clamor, not so much the voice of the people, but ventriloquism to the people to advocate certain things that, well, I don't say be hazardous to your health necessarily, but hazardous to your financial health and your family budget.
Listen to the full episode of Breaking Battlegrounds anywhere you stream your podcasts!