House Bill 1191: Rep Karla Lems proposes new 10% tax against prescription drug advertising

(It might seem like a pick on Scott day, but I’m not the one who is putting his name to these things.)

State Representatives Karla Lems joined by Scott Odenbach have introduced House Bill 1191, a plan to provide property tax relief.  Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, as while it isn’t in the title, the bill is proposing a brand new sky-high 10% tax on “advertising services” for prescription medicines.

The meat and ‘taters of House Bill 1191 is this passage:

Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 10-45:

There is imposed a tax of ten percent on the gross receipts of all sales of advertising services for a drug, as defined in subdivision 34-20B-2(1) or (2).

The department shall transfer all moneys collected pursuant to this section to the state treasurer for deposit into the property tax reduction fund established pursuant to section 3 of this Act.

And what is 34-20B-2(1) or 2?

So they want to increase the prices we pay for prescription drugs in the amount of an incredible 10% sales tax every time this catchy jingle runs?:

They avoided affiliating the tax to be derived from advertising of medical equipment too which if I recall taxing medical equipment was a huge bone of contention in a session under Janklow, but in their new big tax on advertising, if Karla’s new tax would pass, it’s full speed ahead against advertisements for Jardiance, Aspirin, or hard right favorite Ivermectin.

Okay, that ad was a parody, but you get my drift.  Why do Karla and Scott think that tax relief is an excuse to come up with targeted sky-high taxes that no one in their right mind has ever proposed before?

If this is what constitutes the new conservative leadership as handed down by the Speaker Pro Tempore, I have to think that Karla “Tax and Lems” might be facing some postcards in the 2026 election.

14 thoughts on “House Bill 1191: Rep Karla Lems proposes new 10% tax against prescription drug advertising”

  1. But both voted yesterday in favor of getting rid of the fees they would have to pay to get voter lists to campaign. Hypocritical much

  2. “For man or other animals.” So you’re telling me they want to tax advertising for my elderly dogs glucosamine supplements? This is insanity. Is my dog going to be responsible for paying this tax? He’s a very good boy but has never had job or income.

    Every single bottle/box of Advil, ibuprofen, allergy meds, ect. sitting in the shelf in any store is technically an advertisement. So are consumers going to be looking at a 10% spike in the cost to get rid of a headache? Which creates a whole new headache.

    When I’m sitting at my computer clutched in the depths of YouTube and a “male health” advertisement pops up, is YouTube liable for the tax, is the blue pill company liable, am I liable?

    I get it. Let’s go after big pharma. Rah, rah, rah. But the logistics of implementing this type of tax are not logical. Or possible.

    1. Yes. But since a big portion of the price of a drug here in the US comes from advertising costs, you can expect the price of the drug to rise with any additional costs to advertising. This is another very shortsighted bill intended to capitalize on our negative feelings for big pharma. But in the end, it will cost everyone more.

  3. Odd how these “conservative Republicans “ are for raising taxes and spending additional unaccounted money for voucher bills.
    They must be Rinos.

  4. I guess they will have to lower the income threshold for elderly tax freeze on property if the intended 10% increase is indeed applied to their medication. Unfortunately the legislative branch is becoming absurd, I cannot believe someone hasn’t introduced a bill limiting the legislative session to 10 days once every 20 years. The term limit would be for 1 term only.

    This makes more sense than anything else they have dealt with during this legislative session.

  5. Do people even watch pharmacy commercials? “I have diabetes and I want to take that new drug because the people on that commercial look so happy” ??

    What about generics like viagra (sidenafil) or cialis (tadalafil)? Seems more appropriate for a commercial because it is a topic that is difficult to initiate discussion. Will that affect mail order generics, which are a cost savings for patients and go around health care systems (which is a good thing).

    They are getting in way over their heads. Like they were sitting around watching RFK and said “lets make a bill like that Lemi. Ok Scottie.”

  6. Question- aren’t virtually all of these ads national and not local? And since they are national they cross state lines and are considered “Interstate Commerce” which is exclusively regulated by the federal government? If so, wouldn’t this be simply an exercise in futility?
    Just saying…

    1. You would certainly be correct. If only one the sponsors of the bill would be an attorney and recognize this issue before sending it out for the world to see …………………

  7. I would support a national ban on prescription drug commercials. That is one nice thing about other countries. Things would get cheaper if no one had to do it. Right?

  8. Trump has made it impossible for conservatives to put Conservatism first above all. His local squad is just not very conservative in the historic sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *