By Richard Rubin, CQ Staff

The forthcoming House health care bill may use the tax code to take a shot at prescription drug advertising, Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel , Da?`N.Y., said Tuesday.

House tax writers are considering a $37 billion proposal that would remove the business-expense deduction that drug companies now can take for their advertising because, Rangel said, the commercials’ rapid-fire “mumble” about potential side effects is “wrong.”

“I go to the doctor and say, ‘Did you ever think about ordering this for me?’ If he says no, I don’t like him, because they promised me on TV that I [would] have no problems at all,” Rangel said of televised drug commercials.

He added, “Why didn’t you yell loud that [the drug] . . . could kill me as a side effect?”

He acknowledged that businesses would object to the suggestion. A spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PhRMA), which represents drug manufacturers, had no comment Tuesday.

The pharmaceutical advertising provision would pay for only a tiny piece of a bill that is expected to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years. But it may come in handy as Ways and Means Democrats continue a series of meetings on their piece of the health bill and try to cobble together the money to pay for it.

Rangel said he hoped the committee would narrow its revenue-raising options by Friday, adding that sales taxes and a value-added tax have gotten some discussion.

“We’re almost to the point that at, the end of the week, we’ll be able to know what’s off the table and have more than enough revenue that we don’t have to use,” he said. “But we just have it out there, in case it’s more difficult to get to the [spending] cuts recommended by the president.”