S. 1785: No Handouts for Drug Advertisements Act
Sponsor
Josh Hawley
Republican · MO
Bill Progress
Latest Action · May 15, 2025
Read twice and Referred to Finance. for review
Why it matters
Drug companies spent $6.58 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in 2023 alone — and wrote every dollar off their taxes. That means you're effectively helping pay for those Ozempic ads between your shows. S. 1785 would strip that tax break, making drugmakers absorb the full cost of advertising directly to you instead of sharing it with the federal treasury.
The bill creates a new tax rule with a simple premise: if a drug company runs an ad aimed at you — on TV, radio, social media, billboards, your phone, or in your mailbox — it can no longer deduct those costs from its taxes.
That's a meaningful financial hit. Under current law, ad spending reduces a company's taxable income dollar for dollar. A company spending $500 million on TV drug ads effectively saves around $105 million in federal taxes at the 21% corporate rate. S. 1785 eliminates that savings entirely for consumer-facing ads.
The bill is narrowly targeted. Ads in medical journals and professional publications keep their deduction — the bill explicitly carves those out. It's only the ads aimed "primarily at the general public" that lose the tax break. That distinction matters: Congress is drawing a line between marketing to doctors (still deductible) and marketing directly to patients (no longer deductible).
The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising at all. Supporters of the bill argue that even if you can't ban the ads outright, you can at least stop subsidizing them through the tax code. The industry will counter that these ads help patients identify symptoms and have informed conversations with their doctors — the same argument pharma has used for decades to defend DTC advertising.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the bill with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) as an original cosponsor, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) signed on five months later. That R-D pairing signals this isn't a left-right fight — it's a populist one. The bill sits in the Senate Finance Committee, where it will compete for attention against broader tax reform packages.
What does S. 1785 do?
Consumer-facing drug ads lose their tax deduction
Drug companies can no longer deduct the cost of advertising prescription drugs directly to the public. TV commercials, radio spots, social media campaigns, billboard ads, direct mail, and app-based promotions all count. That makes every dollar of consumer ad spending hit the company's bottom line at full cost.
Doctor-facing ads still get the tax break
Ads published in medical journals and professional periodicals are explicitly exempted. The bill only targets marketing aimed at you — not at your doctor. Companies can still deduct the cost of reaching healthcare professionals through traditional channels.
Covers both brand-name and compounded drugs
The rule applies to prescription drug sponsors and to owners of compounding facilities. Whether a company sells a blockbuster brand-name drug or a specialty compounded medication, consumer ads for those products lose the deduction.
Digital platforms are explicitly included
The bill names social media, mobile apps, web apps, and digital platforms alongside traditional broadcast media. That closes the door on drugmakers shifting ad spending to Instagram or TikTok to preserve the deduction.
Takes effect immediately on enactment
No phase-in period. The new rule applies to any ad spending after the bill is signed into law, in any tax year ending after that date. Companies can't front-load spending before the deadline.
Who benefits from S. 1785?
Taxpayers who are tired of subsidizing drug ads
Right now, when a drug company spends $500 million on TV commercials, it reduces its tax bill by roughly $105 million — money the Treasury doesn't collect. Eliminating that deduction means the federal government keeps more revenue without raising anyone's individual taxes.
Doctors frustrated by patients requesting advertised drugs
Physicians routinely cite DTC advertising as a driver of inappropriate prescribing requests. If the bill makes consumer ad campaigns more expensive and companies pull back, doctors could spend less time explaining why the drug from the commercial isn't right for a particular patient.
Generic and lower-profile drugmakers
Companies that don't run Super Bowl ads or Instagram campaigns won't feel this bill at all. Their competitors who rely heavily on consumer advertising face higher after-tax marketing costs, which narrows the competitive gap.
Who is affected by S. 1785?
Major pharmaceutical companies with big DTC ad budgets
The top 10 pharma advertisers spend billions on consumer-facing campaigns annually. Losing the tax deduction on that spending increases their effective cost significantly — potentially forcing budget shifts away from TV and social media toward medical journal advertising or other channels that stay deductible.
Ad agencies and media companies
Agencies specializing in pharma creative, and TV networks that depend on drug ad revenue, could see budgets shrink if drugmakers pull back on consumer campaigns. Pharma is one of the largest advertising categories on network television.
Patients who learn about treatments from TV and online ads
If companies respond to higher costs by advertising less, you might see fewer drug commercials — which means fewer prompts to ask your doctor about specific medications. Whether that's a benefit or a loss depends on whether you think those ads inform or manipulate.
S. 1785 Common Questions
How much do drug companies spend on ads you see?
The pharma industry spent $6.58 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in 2023. At the 21% corporate tax rate, deducting that spending saves companies roughly $1.4 billion in federal taxes annually. S. 1785 would eliminate that deduction entirely for ads aimed at the general public.
Would this bill ban drug commercials?
No. S. 1785 doesn't restrict what drug companies can advertise — it changes how those ads are taxed. Companies can still run every TV spot and Instagram campaign they want. They just can't deduct the cost from their taxes anymore, which makes those campaigns more expensive.
Which types of drug ads lose the tax break?
Any ad for a prescription or compounded drug that's aimed at regular people — not doctors. That includes TV, radio, billboards, direct mail, social media, mobile apps, websites, and digital platforms. Basically every channel where you'd encounter a drug ad in daily life.
Can drug companies still deduct ads in medical journals?
Yes. The bill explicitly exempts ads published in journals and professional periodicals. Congress drew a deliberate line: marketing to your doctor stays deductible, marketing directly to you does not.
Why is this a bipartisan bill?
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced S. 1785 with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) as original cosponsor. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) joined later. Pharma advertising is one of the rare issues where populist conservatives and progressive Democrats agree — both sides see these tax deductions as a corporate perk that taxpayers shouldn't be funding.
Is the U.S. the only country that allows drug ads on TV?
Almost. The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that permit direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. S. 1785 doesn't ban the practice — but it removes the tax incentive that makes it cheaper.
When would the tax change take effect?
Immediately. The bill applies to any ad spending after the date it's signed into law, in any tax year ending after that date. There's no phase-in period or transition window — companies can't front-load spending to preserve the old deduction.
What happens to the money the government collects?
The bill doesn't say. The additional tax revenue from eliminating the deduction flows into general federal revenue — not earmarked for healthcare, drug pricing, or any specific program. Congress could use it for anything.
Based on S. 1785 bill text
Visual Summary
S. 1785 at a Glance
<div style="max-width:100%;">
<img src="https://legisletter.org/images/bill-infographics/s1785-no-handouts-drug-advertisements-act.jpeg" alt="S1785 Visual Summary - No Handouts for Drug Advertisements Act" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;display:block;" />
<p style="margin:8px 0 0;font-size:14px;color:#555;text-align:center;">
<a href="https://legisletter.org/bill/s1785-no-handouts-drug-advertisements-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color:inherit;text-decoration:underline;">S1785 Visual Summary – No Handouts for Drug Advertisements Act</a>
<span> via </span>
<a href="https://legisletter.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color:inherit;text-decoration:none;font-weight:500;">legisletter.org</a>
</p>
</div>S1785 Legislative Journey
Committee Action
May 15, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
About the Sponsor
Josh Hawley
Republican, MO · 7 years in Congress
Committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the Judiciary
View full profile →
Cosponsors (2)
All 2 cosponsors are Democrats. Cosponsors represent 2 states: Michigan, New Hampshire.
Committee Sponsors
Finance Committee
0 of 27 committee members cosponsored
No committee members have cosponsored this bill
14 Republicans across this committee haven't cosponsored yet. Mobilize their constituents
What laws does S. 1785 change?
3 key amendments · 3 total changes
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part IX
''SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING OF CERTAIN DRUGS.
''(a) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for expenses relating to direct-to-consumer advertising of covered drugs for any taxable year.''What this means: Creates a new tax rule that prohibits businesses from deducting expenses for direct-to-consumer advertising of certain drugs when calculating their taxable income.
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part IX, new §280I(b)(1)–(2)
''(b) DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING.—For purposes of this section—
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The term 'direct-to-consumer advertising' means any dissemination, by or on behalf of a covered entity, of an advertisement which—
''(A) is in regard to a covered drug, and
''(B) primarily targeted to the general public, including through—
''(i) broadcasting through media such as radio, television, and telephone communication systems, direct mail, and billboards, and
''(ii) dissemination on the Internet or through digital platforms (including social media, mobile media, web applications, digital applications, mobile applications, and electronic applications).
''(2) EXCEPTION.—Such term shall not include an advertisement made through publication in journals and other periodicals.''What this means: Defines what counts as non-deductible direct-to-consumer drug advertising (broadcast, online, and similar public-facing media) and carves out an exception so that drug ads in journals and other periodicals remain deductible.
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part IX, new §280I(b)(3)
''(3) OTHER TERMS.—For purposes of this subsection—
''(A) COVERED ENTITY.—The term 'covered entity' means—
''(i) a sponsor of a prescription drug product (as such term is defined in section 735(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), or
''(ii) a person that owns an outsourcing facility (as such term is defined in section 503B(d)(4) of such Act), either directly or indirectly through a subsidiary.
''(B) COVERED DRUG.—The term 'covered drug' means—
''(i) a prescription drug product (as such term is defined in section 735(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), or
''(ii) a drug compounded in accordance with section 503A or 503B of such Act.''What this means: Specifies which companies (drug sponsors and owners of outsourcing facilities) and which products (prescription and certain compounded drugs) are subject to the new denial of advertising tax deductions.
S. 1785 Quick Facts
- Committee
- Finance
- Chamber
- Senate
- Policy
- Taxation
- Introduced
- May 15, 2025
Read twice and Referred to Finance. for review
May 15, 2025
S. 1785 Bill Text
“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the deduction for advertising and promotional expenses for certain drugs.”
Source: U.S. Government Publishing Office
Get notified when S. 1785 moves
Committee votes, floor action, cosponsor changes — straight to your inbox.
Bill alerts + Legisletter's monthly briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taxation Bills
9 related bills we're tracking
Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Apr 8, 2025
Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Apr 8, 2025
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the railroad track maintenance credit.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Jan 16, 2025
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the railroad track maintenance credit.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Jan 16, 2025
No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Feb 5, 2025
No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Feb 5, 2025
Military Spouse Hiring Act
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Mar 11, 2025
Military Spouse Hiring Act
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Mar 11, 2025
More Homes on the Market Act
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Feb 13, 2025
Trending Right Now
Bills gaining momentum across Congress
Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Feb 17, 2026
ALERT Act
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Feb 20, 2026
Fair Housing for Survivors Act of 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mar 5, 2026
Tracking Taxation in Congress? Monitor bills, track cosponsor momentum, and launch advocacy campaigns — all from one advocacy platform.