Big Pharma’s Private Jets and Public Costs: How Lobbying, Advertising and Profits Drive High Drug Prices

“Affordability” dominates American political debate — yet millions of people still struggle to pay for lifesaving medicines. As patients decide whether to fill prescriptions, private jets owned by six of the country’s largest drugmakers landed at Washington-area airports at least 127 times this year, according to flight-tracking data compiled by Endpoints News — a stark image of misplaced priorities.

The facts are striking: the United States pays nearly three times what other wealthy nations pay for prescription drugs, and millions respond by skipping doses, splitting pills or leaving prescriptions unfilled. In 2023, more than one-quarter of adults reported delaying or avoiding care because of cost.

Profits, Advertising and Influence

A report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions found that ten major pharmaceutical companies logged roughly $112 billion in profits in 2022. A 2025 ranking of the world’s most profitable drugmakers puts Merck at about $19 billion in net income and Eli Lilly at about $18.4 billion over the past 12 months — clear evidence of how much remains after business costs.

Among those costs is a vast marketing effort directed at consumers. Direct-to-consumer prescription advertising — banned in 193 other countries — cost drugmakers more than $10.1 billion in 2024–2025, by one estimate. These campaigns can turn clinical conversations into product pitches and pressure doctors to prescribe expensive branded drugs rather than cheaper alternatives.

At the same time, the pharmaceutical and health products industry poured roughly $372 million into lobbying in 2022, about $300 million in 2024, and more than $334 million by fall 2025, as the administration pursued new pricing proposals. Contributions and lobbying resources flow to both parties and concentrate on lawmakers with oversight of drug policy, particularly the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Business Ties and the Revolving Door

Industry influence extends beyond donations. The Wall Street Journal reported proposals such as a “TrumpRx” plan tied to direct-sale platforms like BlinkRx, recently adding Donald Trump Jr. to its board. The “revolving door” between government and industry also matters: former Rep. Billy Tauzin helped craft the 2003 Medicare drug law that barred Medicare from negotiating prices — and soon after left Congress for a lucrative job running PhRMA, the industry trade group.

The political compromises run both ways. During Affordable Care Act negotiations, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats reportedly struck a deal with PhRMA that included an $80 billion promise of savings in exchange for limits on Medicare negotiation and restrictions on drug importation — measures that might have significantly lowered prices.

Policy Solutions That Could Help

Meaningful change will require breaking the financial ties that preserve the status quo and restoring public-health priorities. Key reforms proposed include:

• Banning or strictly limiting direct-to-consumer drug advertising to reduce commercial pressure on prescribing.
• Prohibiting presidents, cabinet members and members of Congress from advancing policies that benefit companies in which they or immediate family hold equity or board roles.
• Requiring cooling-off periods that bar lawmakers and senior staff who oversee health policy from negotiating jobs with pharma, pharmacy benefit managers or trade groups for several years after leaving office.
• Establishing genuine, transparent Medicare negotiations with drugmakers and closing loopholes and carve-outs that weaken bargaining power.
• Strengthening disclosure and conflict-of-interest rules through measures like the TRUST in Congress Act, restrictions on stock trading by lawmakers and targeted bills such as the Insulin Act.

There are bipartisan measures — the Insulin Act, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, and proposals to require blind trusts or bar trading in regulated industries — that could make a real difference. But well-funded lobbying and entrenched interests mean these reforms face intense resistance.

The bottom line: If voters demand accountability and lawmakers act to curb industry influence, transparency and negotiation could reduce prices and restore trust. Without those changes, patients will keep paying the price.

About the author: Chris Shays served as a Republican congressman from Connecticut from 1987 to 2009. Known as a moderate who worked across the aisle, he served on committees overseeing finance, homeland security and government reform.