Marcia M Boumil, Kaitlyn Dunn, Nancy Ryan, Katrina Clearwater
{"title":"Prescription data mining, medical privacy and the First Amendment: the U.S. Supreme Court in Sorrell v. IMS health Inc.","authors":"Marcia M Boumil, Kaitlyn Dunn, Nancy Ryan, Katrina Clearwater","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2011, the United States Supreme Court in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. struck down a Vermont law that would restrict the ability of pharmaceutical companies to purchase certain physician-identifiable prescription data without the consent of the prescriber. The law's stated purpose was threefold: to protect the privacy of medical information, to protect the public health and to contain healthcare costs by promoting Vermont's preference in having physicians prescribe more generic drugs. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Vermont law represented a legitimate, common sense regulatory program or a bold attempt to suppress commercial speech when the \"message\" is disfavored by the state. Striking down the law, the Supreme Court applied a heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny to this commercial transaction and held that the Vermont law was not narrowly tailored to protect legitimate privacy interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":79788,"journal":{"name":"Annals of health law","volume":"21 2","pages":"447-91, 4 p preceding i"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In 2011, the United States Supreme Court in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. struck down a Vermont law that would restrict the ability of pharmaceutical companies to purchase certain physician-identifiable prescription data without the consent of the prescriber. The law's stated purpose was threefold: to protect the privacy of medical information, to protect the public health and to contain healthcare costs by promoting Vermont's preference in having physicians prescribe more generic drugs. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Vermont law represented a legitimate, common sense regulatory program or a bold attempt to suppress commercial speech when the "message" is disfavored by the state. Striking down the law, the Supreme Court applied a heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny to this commercial transaction and held that the Vermont law was not narrowly tailored to protect legitimate privacy interests.
2011年,美国最高法院在Sorrell诉IMS Health Inc.一案中推翻了佛蒙特州的一项法律,该法律将限制制药公司在未经处方者同意的情况下购买某些医生可识别的处方数据的能力。该法律宣称的目的有三个:保护医疗信息的隐私,保护公众健康,通过促进佛蒙特州倾向于让医生开更多的仿制药来控制医疗成本。摆在最高法院面前的问题是,佛蒙特州的法律是一个合法的、常识性的监管项目,还是在“信息”不受州政府欢迎的情况下压制商业言论的大胆尝试。最高法院推翻了这项法律,对这项商业交易运用了更高水平的第一修正案审查,并认为佛蒙特州的法律并没有狭隘地保护合法的隐私利益。