Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow direct advertising on prescription drugs, according to University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy professor Dr. David Kreling, a pharmaceutical policy and marketing expert.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration approves marketing of prescription drugs through the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The act also prohibits using false or misleading information in advertisements.

The FDA requires advertisements to present the statement on a drug’s side effects in a “clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.”

Most countries prohibit direct advertising of pharmaceuticals because some available drugs aren’t tested enough to guard against rare but potentially severe side effects.

While the U.S. has never had a federal law banning direct advertising of prescription drugs, companies did not publicize prescription information through direct advertisements until the 1980s. Previously only doctors and pharmacists received that information.

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made the claim April 21.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy: David Kreling
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: USFDA
• The Conversation: David Menkes, Barbara Mintzes, Joel Lexchin

Is the US one of only two nations that allow direct advertising of prescription drugs?  is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A pharmacy manager retrieves a bottle of antibiotics. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at lowering drug prices by pressuring pharmaceutical companies to align their U.S. pricing models with those in similarly wealthy countries.

“We’ll slash the cost of prescription drugs and will bring fairness to America,” Trump said at a morning White House event. “We’re all gonna pay the same.”

The executive order, which the White House dubbed the “most-favored-nation” policy, gives pharmaceutical companies 30 days to negotiate lower drug prices with the government.

If no deal is reached in that time, Trump said a new rule will be set so that the United States will have a price model similar to the lower rates patients abroad pay. According to the executive order, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be responsible for the rulemaking  “to impose most-favored-nation pricing.”

“We are going to pay the lowest price there is in the world,” Trump said.

Prescription pricing for brand-name drugs in the U.S. is more than four times higher than in similar countries, according to a 2024 study by the nonpartisan research nonprofit RAND.

Clear price targets

A White House official previewing the policy in a background call with reporters Monday said the president will direct the Department of Commerce to “take all appropriate action” on countries that “suppress drug pricing abroad.”

The Food and Drug Administration will also consider expanding imports of pharmaceutical drugs from nations beyond Canada, the White House official said.

Former President Joe Biden issued an executive order to direct the FDA to work with states to import prescription drugs from Canada.

The White House official said Kennedy “will set clear targets for price reductions across all markets in the United States.”

Kennedy appeared at the White House alongside the president Monday morning.

“The United States will no longer subsidize the health care of foreign countries, which is what we were doing,” Kennedy said. “If the Europeans raise their price of their drugs by just 20%, that is tens of trillions that can be spent on innovation and the health of all people all across the globe.”

Trump said Monday the drug pricing policy would be included in the “one, big, beautiful,” reconciliation bill that is the top priority of congressional Republicans. The measure is also expected to provide tax cuts and a significant funding increase to border security.

Staff on the House Energy and Commerce Committee told reporters twice during a background briefing around the same time that most favored nation prescription drug pricing would not be in that reconciliation package.

First term

The order is similar to an effort the president made in his first term, which was struck down in federal court.

The White House official said Monday’s order is an expansion of those first-term efforts, which tried to apply the pricing model for those with Medicare – the health insurance program for those who are 65 or older and certain people under 65 who have disabilities – to 50 drugs.

“The expectation should not be that we will just be pursuing that same rulemaking,” a White House official said. “We have moved on from that for broader action.”

The pharmaceutical industry has long opposed such a move and is already bracing for the president’s planned tariffs on prescription drugs. 

More details on specific actions in Medicare will be announced later, according to a White House official.

“We will be taking action in the Medicare program if the pharmaceutical companies do not come to the table and lower their prices across markets,” the White House official said.

Effort unserious, leading Democrat says

U.S. Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, slammed Monday’s executive order.

“If Trump was serious about lowering drug prices, he would work with Congress to strengthen Medicare drug price negotiations, not just sign a piece of paper,” Wyden said.

The Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed along party lines in 2022 when they held unified control of Washington allowed for drug negotiating pricing that aims to lower drug costs for those with Medicare.

“Democrats took on Big Pharma and won by finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of seniors and capping their out-of-pocket costs for expensive prescriptions,” Wyden said, referring to the law.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Less than half of Americans have confidence in federal public health agencies’ ability to regulate prescriptions, approve vaccines and respond to outbreaks, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The survey shows that just 46% of the people questioned have at least some confidence in federal agencies ensuring the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs.

Even fewer, 45%, have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and only 42% said they have confidence federal health agencies to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, like bird flu and measles.

An especially low percentage of those polled, 32%, had either some confidence or a lot of confidence in federal health agencies acting independently without interference from outside interests.

“There are remarkably low levels of trust in the nation’s scientific agencies, shaped by partisan perspectives, and that presents a real danger for the country if and when another pandemic hits,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman wrote in a statement accompanying the poll.

Confidence in agencies sags or rises by party affiliation

The percentage of people overall who hold confidence in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide reliable information about vaccines has dropped since a similar survey in September 2023, though party affiliation shows differing trends.

Democrats with a fair amount or great deal of trust in the FDA’s vaccine information has decreased from 86% to 67%, while trust among Republicans has increased from 42% to 52%.

When combined with independents, overall trust in the FDA’s information about vaccines has decreased, from 61% to 57%.

Confidence in the CDC providing reliable information about vaccines has also shifted based on party affiliation.

During the Biden administration, 88% of Democrats had a fair amount or great deal of trust in the CDC, though that has since dropped to 70%. Republicans have started to come back around to the CDC’s vaccine information, with their level of trust increasing from 40% to 51%.

Altogether, trust in CDC has dropped from 63% to 59%, according to the survey.

“The overall level of trust in each case is similar to where it stood in September 2023, though the poll reveals significant partisan shifts as the second Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have started to change vaccine policies and messaging,” the poll states.

Local sources trusted

Health care providers and local public health departments are overwhelmingly looked to as trusted sources for reliable information on vaccines, according to the survey.

Eighty-two percent of respondents said they either have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in doctors and health care providers to give them reliable information about vaccines.

Eighty-one percent said they trust their child’s pediatrician, 66% responded they have confidence in their local public health department, 59% believe in the CDC, 57% trust the FDA and 51% have confidence in pharmaceutical companies to provide factual information about vaccines.

Those polled held less trust in politicians, with 41% believing Kennedy’s comments about vaccines and 37% trusting President Donald Trump “to provide reliable information about vaccines,” according to the poll.

A majority of those surveyed, however, are somewhat or very confident in the safety of several vaccines, including 83% for measles, mumps and rubella, or the MMR vaccine; 82% for pneumonia; 79% for shingles; 74% for the flu; and 56% for COVID-19.

The poll included 1,380 U.S. adults contacted online or via telephone from April 8-15, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. 

A Wisconsin couple is suing Walgreens and a pharmacy benefits management company, alleging that their son died because he couldn’t afford a sudden $500 spike in his asthma medication.

Shanon and William Schmidtknecht of Poynette filed their lawsuit in federal court in Milwaukee on Jan. 21, a year to the day that their son Cole died at age 22.

According to the lawsuit, Cole Schmidtknecht suffered from asthma all his life. He managed it with daily inhaler doses of the medication Advair Diskus and its generic equivalents.

He stopped at a Walgreens pharmacy in Appleton on Jan. 10, 2024, to refill his prescription and was told the cost had jumped from $66 to $539 out-of-pocket. Unable to afford the new cost, he left the pharmacy without the medication. He tried to manage his condition with his rescue inhaler but suffered a fatal asthma attack days later, according to the lawsuit.

The Schmidtknechts allege that pharmacy benefits management company OptumRX violated Wisconsin law by raising the cost of the medication without a valid medical reason and failing to provide 30 days’ advance notice of drug price increases.

Pharmacy benefits managers act as intermediaries between health insurance companies, prescription drug companies and pharmacies. Optum Rx services prescription claims for more than 66 million people across the United States, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Walgreens pharmacy staffers failed to offer Cole any workarounds to obtain his usual medication. They told him there were no cheaper alternatives or generic medications available, they didn’t contact OptumRx to request an exception on Cole’s behalf, and they didn’t ask Cole’s doctor to request an exception for him, his parents contend.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

“The conduct of both OptumRx and Walgreens was deplorable,” one of the family’s attorneys, Michael Trunk, said in a statement. “The evidence in this case will show that both OptumRx and Walgreens put profits first, and are directly responsible for Cole’s death.”

OptumRx spokespeople didn’t immediately reply to Wednesday messages seeking comment. In a statement last April extending sympathy to the family, the company said that a review of Cole’s claims showed that on the day he visited the pharmacy, he did buy a different asthma medication, generic Albuterol, for a $5 co-pay on Jan. 10 — a medication that it says he also obtained in October 2023. His case was handled “consistent with industry practice and the patient’s insurance plan design,” the company said.

Trunk, though, said Wednesday that the $5 generic prescription Cole filled was for his rescue inhaler, not the Advair Diskus inhaler that he took daily. He said Cole was not able to fill his Advair Diskus prescription because it had suddenly become too expensive.

Walgreens officials didn’t immediately respond to a Wednesday email seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin couple sues Walgreens and Optum Rx, saying son died after $500 price rise for asthma meds is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.