Let's TalkLet's TalkThe rulebook nobody emails you about. What varies state to state in medical advertising, which categories of rule bite hardest, and how to check yours before creative is produced.
There is no national rulebook, which is why generic advice is useless here. Name your state and your specialty and we will send back a plain-English summary of what that board requires on testimonials, results imagery, credential claims and disclaimers - with the source so you can check it yourself.
Four failures we see repeatedly in this vertical, and what each one actually costs.
Medical advertising is regulated state by state through boards of medicine and dentistry, each with its own rules and its own interpretation of them. A practice that reads one national guide and applies it everywhere is compliant somewhere and non-compliant somewhere else, with no way to tell which.
The moment a practice advertises into a second state, a second board's rules apply to the same creative. Multi-state groups routinely run one ad set across a footprint where the testimonial permitted in one state needs a disclaimer in another. Nothing in the ad platform flags it.
No board reviews your ads. They respond to complaints, and the complaints frequently come from competitors who know the local rules better than you do. That makes this a risk that stays invisible right up until it is expensive.
Meta approving an ad says nothing about whether your board permits it - they are unrelated bodies applying unrelated standards. Practices reasonably assume that a running ad is a permitted ad, and that assumption is the whole problem.
The real deliverables, not a list written to make a proposal look thicker.
Where you treat patients now and where you intend to next. Intent matters, because the creative is cheaper to build compliant for the whole footprint than to rebuild per state later.
The four categories that actually vary - testimonials, results imagery, credential claims, disclaimers - read from the board's own published rules with the source recorded.
Which assets can run everywhere, which need a state-specific variant, and which cannot run in a given state at all. For a single-state practice this is one column; for a group it is the document that prevents the expensive mistake.
Where practical we write to the strictest rule in your footprint, so one asset runs everywhere. Where that would weaken the creative too much, we produce variants rather than compromise the whole campaign.
A new state means a new board before the first impression, not after the first complaint. This is a standing item rather than a one-off review.
This is the page that exists because of this account. A clinic group expanded from three states to twelve in eighteen months, which meant the same creative meeting nine new boards. Handling that per state - rather than discovering it per complaint - is part of why the expansion held together while cost per lead fell 57%. Scaling a medical practice across state lines is a compliance exercise as much as a media one.
Read the full case studyWe had one ad set running across four states and no idea the testimonial rules were different in each. That was a genuinely uncomfortable conversation to have.
Nobody in six years of marketing had mentioned our board had its own advertising rules. Two agencies, neither raised it.
The per-state matrix meant we could expand without rebuilding the creative each time. That saved more than the retainer.
Because medical practice is licensed and regulated at state level in the US, and each state's board of medicine or dentistry sets its own advertising rules. Federal law and platform policy sit on top of that, but the professional rules that govern how a licensed clinician may advertise are state rules. A guide that gives one national answer is describing the FTC and platform layer and quietly skipping the layer with your licence attached to it.
Four, in our experience. Patient testimonials and reviews vary the most - some boards restrict them heavily, others require specific disclaimers. Results imagery, including before-and-after photographs, varies in whether it is permitted at all and what must accompany it. Credential and specialty claims vary in how a clinician may describe board certification or call themselves a specialist. And disclaimer requirements on typical-results language vary in both wording and placement.
Yes, and it is cheaper to handle because there is only one rulebook. A single-state practice needs its own board's rules confirmed once, before results imagery or testimonials are produced, and then re-checked only if the board updates them. The expensive version of this problem is the multi-state one, but the complaint risk exists at any size.
No, and this is the assumption that causes most of the trouble. Meta and your state board are unrelated bodies applying unrelated standards for unrelated reasons. An ad can run for months, perform well, and still breach your board's rules on testimonials or results claims. Platform approval is a statement about platform policy and nothing else.
It varies by state, and it is a professional process rather than a marketing one - which is why we do not give an answer beyond that and tell you to involve your counsel early. What we can tell you is what makes it more manageable: a written record showing the rules were checked before the creative ran. A practice that can show the review happened is in a materially different position from one that cannot.
No. It is a plain-English reading of your board's published advertising rules with the sources cited, written so your attorney can verify it quickly rather than research it from scratch. We are a marketing agency that reads these rules because we produce creative against them daily. Where something is a genuine legal question we say so rather than guess.
This is one part of a bigger service. Here is the whole of it, and the closest neighbours.
No pitch deck, no discovery call you have to sit through. Tell us the situation and we will tell you whether we can help.