Court’s logic hard to swallow

First Amendment supporters can breath a sigh of relief. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Vermont law that impinged upon the free speech rights of pharmaceutical companies.

If derisive laughing and/or forehead slapping lasts more than four hours, contact your doctor.

(When the

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent at least $101.2 million on lobbying during the health-care overhaul debate in 2009, the term “free speech” needed defibrillating.)

Vermont’s 2007 law blocked the sale of doctors’ prescription data to drug companies. The high court ruled 6-3 that the law interfered with the pharmaceutical industry’s right to market its products.

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

Thirty-five states, along with the Justice Department, joined Vermont’s defense of the law, as did privacy groups and medical organizations. Maine and New Hampshire have similar laws on the books.

IMS Health Inc. and other data collectors challenged the law. The companies gather information from pharmacies on which medicines doctors are prescribing and how often. Pharmaceutical companies buy the information, and use it to refine marketing pitches and measure which salespeople are the most effective, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Patient names aren’t included, but the physician’s name, address and strength of drugs prescribed are included to allow pharmaceutical companies to track the illnesses physicians treat, and their prescribing patterns, USA Today reported. Drug makers use the information to assemble a focused sales campaign to convince doctors to advise patients to use newer, more expensive drugs rather than less expensive generic medications, the Christian Science Monitor reported.

IMS Health has a different view. It says the information is “essential to improved patient care and safety.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that because the information is available to others, such as researchers, law enforcement and insurance companies, keeping the data from drug makers and other marketers is an unfair restriction.

Writing in dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that “The speech-related consequences here are indirect, incidental and entirely commercial.” He stressed that the information covered by Vermont’s law was commercial in nature and exists because of government regulation of pharmacy records.

Breyer also warned that the court may have opened “a Pandora’s Box of First Amendment challenges to many ordinary regulatory practices.”

Justice Kennedy said “Vermont’s statute could be compared to a law prohibiting trade magazines from purchasing or using ink.”

Not quite. The law didn’t prohibit drug companies from purchasing ingredients to make new medicines.

Exaggeration is totally permissible free speech, but usually it’s not very persuasive. But never underestimate the pharmaceutical companies’ ability to market a campaign.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, June 4

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A rendering of possible configuration for a new multi-purpose stadium in downtown Everett. (DLR Group)
Editorial: Latest ballpark figures drive hope for new stadium

A lower estimate for the project should help persuade city officials to move ahead with plans.

Burke: A parade for Army? Sure; but let a sibling march, too

The U.S. Merchant Marine has supplied the country’s fighting forces since the Revolutionary War.

Harrop: This isn’t the outcome that Musk likely imagined

After handing over $250 million to elect Trump, he got the job of taking heat for unpopular cuts.

Dowd: Musk moved fast and broke his own reputation

The head of the failed-DOGE experiment leaves Washington with a black eye and less respect.

Comment: GOP’s fiscal hawks get it; voters don’t care about debt

On a basic level they say they do, but they’re more concerned over inflation and cuts to their services.

Comment: Drilling in Alaska tough enough; Trump isn’t helping

Despite his drill-baby-drill promises, Trumps’ trade and energy policies are working against him.

A rendering of the new vessels to be built for Washington State Ferries. (Washington State Ferries)
Editorial: Local shipyard should get shot to build state ferries

If allowed to build at least two ferries, Nichols Brothers can show the value building here offers.

Solar panels are visible along the rooftop of the Crisp family home on Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: ‘Big, beautiful bill’ would take from our climate, too

Along with cuts to the social safety net, the bill robs investments in the clean energy economy.

A Lakewood Middle School eighth-grader (right) consults with Herald Opinion Editor Jon Bauer about the opinion essay he was writing for a class assignment. (Kristina Courtnage Bowman / Lakewood School District)
Youth Forum: Just what are those kids thinking?

A sample of opinion essays written by Lakewood Middle School eighth-graders as a class assignment.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, June 3

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Renovating of Funko Field cheaper than building new stadium

The City of Everett faces three stadium options: 1. Do nothing and… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.