Health practitioners and other health professionals are uniquely placed to identify gaps in the health products market and to develop medicines and medical devices that meet genuine consumer needs. But while practitioners may create or supply therapeutic goods, there are important limits on how they can promote them.
One of the most commonly misunderstood rules in Australian therapeutic goods advertising is that health practitioner and health professional endorsements of medicines and medical devices are generally prohibited in consumer advertising. And despite the clear rules, health practitioners endorsing therapeutic goods is increasingly common across podcasts, radio, television and social media.
Here’s why it matters.
The advertising of medicines, medical devices and other types of therapeutic goods in Australia is controlled under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act). The Act in turn requires consumer advertising to comply with the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code (the Code). Both the Act and the Code are administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
The Code prohibits endorsements from health practitioners (such as medical practitioners, nurses and pharmacists) and health professionals (such as naturopaths) in advertising directed to consumers. The TGA which can issue warning letters and fines or take court action against non-compliant advertising.
Importantly, the absence of recent public enforcement action does not mean the conduct is permitted. Nor does the fact that similar advertising may already exist in the market. Compliance obligations apply irrespective of industry trends or what competitors may be doing. Further, these restrictions exist for good reason.
Consumers often place significant trust in health practitioners and health professionals. A recommendation from a practitioner can carry considerable weight, particularly when delivered through media channels that create a sense of familiarity or authority. But public recommendations are inherently limited: practitioners cannot know every audience member’s medical history, concurrent medicines, contraindications or underlying conditions.
Even relatively low-risk medicines may not be appropriate for all consumers. There is also the risk that consumers may delay seeking appropriate medical assessment because they believe a publicly promoted product will address their symptoms. (leading to a potential ‘lost opportunity’ to treat appropriately scenario).
Professional obligations should also be considered. Depending on the circumstances, promotional conduct may raise issues under Ahpra and National Board codes and guidelines relating to professional conduct, conflicts of interest and evidence-based practice.
So, what can health practitioners lawfully say about medicines and medical devices?
In general, lower-risk activities include:
- publishing or contributing to research in independent, peer reviewed, third-party journals;
- providing factual, balanced and evidence-based information grounded in accepted scientific or clinical literature;
- discussing therapeutic categories or clinical evidence in a way that is educational rather than promotional.
Balanced information is critical. That means not selectively presenting favourable evidence while omitting limitations, contraindications, adverse effects or uncertainty in the data. Where products are referenced, avoiding exclusive focus on a single brand or trade name may also help reduce promotional risk.
Some practical risk areas to approach cautiously include:
- recommending specific medicines or medical devices to general audiences through radio, television, podcasts or social media;
- providing broad public “advice” without appropriate clinical assessment;
- heavily associating personal professional identity with the branding or promotion of a therapeutic good;
- failing to clearly disclose commercial relationships or financial interests.
For practitioners involved in the therapeutic goods industry, the challenge is not whether they can contribute valuable expertise — they absolutely can. The challenge is ensuring that education, advocacy and commercial activity remain clearly separated from prohibited endorsement and advertising conduct.