FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2051205768> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2051205768 endingPage "12" @default.
• W2051205768 startingPage "12" @default.
• W2051205768 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Legal NewsFull AccessCourt Rejects Law Restricting Access to Prescribing DataJonathan WolfeJonathan WolfeSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:19 Aug 2011https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.46.16.psychnews_46_16_12_1AbstractThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a 2007 Vermont law that restricts the sale, disclosure, and use of physicians' prescribing data for commercial purposes. Vermont's intention was to prevent third-party data miners from purchasing this information from pharmacies and using the data to help pharmaceutical companies devise physician-specific marketing strategies. The high court, however, sided with the defendants in the case (Sorrell v. IMS Health), finding the law to be a violation of the companies' free-speech rights. The goal of the Prescription Confidentiality Law is to protect the physician-patient relationship from outside influence and prevent pharmaceutical company detailers from encouraging clinicians to prescribe newer, more expensive medications. And while U.S. District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha upheld the law in June 2009, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in November 2010. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January of this year (see Data-Mining Laws' Ups and Downs). In the 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court rejected the state's argument that the law is a mere commercial regulation. According to Kennedy, the defendants' creation and dissemination of information is protected under the First Amendment. Further, the Court asserted that the law's opt-out provision for physicians wishing to maintain confidentiality offers a contrived choice that favors the interests of the state. Attorneys defending Vermont's law had also argued that the marketing efforts of pharmaceutical companies are tantamount to physician harassment. The Court dismissed this line of argument too, maintaining that physicians can simply choose not to meet with drug-company representatives. Similarly, the Court rejected the charge that drug reps' tactics have the potential to influence how physicians treat their patients: [T]he fear that speech might persuade provides no lawful basis for quieting it. The State's interest in burdening the speech of detailers ... turns on nothing more than a difference of opinion, the Court concluded. Dissenters Question Court PrecedenceSupreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued in favor of the law's constitutionality in his dissenting opinion, asserting that the Court has previously supported statutes designed to regulate commercial speech and had never questioned governmental restrictions on the use of information gathered pursuant to a regulatory mandate. According to Breyer, the statute neither forbids nor requires anyone to say anything, to engage in any form of symbolic speech, or to endorse any particular point of view, whether ideological or related to the sale of a product. Breyer contended that the Supreme Court should evaluate the law under the standard appropriate for the review of economic regulation. The Vermont statute ... deprives pharmaceutical and data-mining companies of data ... that could help pharmaceutical companies create better sales messages, Breyer wrote. In my view, this effect on expression is inextricably related to a lawful governmental effort to regulate a commercial enterprise. Breyer also backed the state's argument that customized marketing plans can impede clinicians' focus on the safety, efficacy, and cost of a given medication. This diversion comes at the expense of public health and [Vermont's] fiscal interests, Breyer noted.Physician Groups, Politicians Weigh InMany physicians throughout the state supported Vermont's data-mining law. And five medical associations representing clinicians from across the country joined the Vermont Medical Society (VMS) in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the data-mining prohibition. Vermont's physicians are disappointed the Supreme Court overturned Vermont's data-mining ban, said VMS Executive Vice President Paul Harrington. Physicians were completely unaware that pharmaceutical companies had access to this information when they were coming to the physicians' offices. Despite the high court's rejection of the Vermont law as currently written, APA Treasurer David Fassler, M.D., a Vermont psychiatrist, expressed hope that some tweaking of the law's language could result in passage of a statute with similar objectives. This case raised interesting legal issues clearly not contemplated by the sponsors of the original legislation, Fassler said. I expect state officials are reviewing the opinion to see if the law can be modified in a manner that would comply with the Court's decision. I doubt we've heard the end of the issue. U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were more critical of the ruling and its implications, accusing the Supreme Court's majority of unfairly siding with the pharmaceutical companies. This decision is another example of the Court using the First Amendment as a tool to bolster the rights of big business at the expense of individual Americans, Leahy said. State legislatures should be allowed to protect their citizens' privacy rights over corporate interests in profits. Five days after declaring Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ordered the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review its decision on Maine's data-mining law in light of the Vermont ruling. That court had upheld the constitutionality of the Maine law. On July 8, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a house resolution (H.Res. 343) expressing disapproval of the Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health. The resolution states that the Court incorrectly applied a ‘heightened’ First Amendment standard of review to an instance of commercial regulation. The Supreme Court's decision is posted at <www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-779.pdf>. ISSUES NewArchived" @default.
• W2051205768 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2051205768 creator A5031679452 @default.
• W2051205768 date "2011-08-19" @default.
• W2051205768 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2051205768 title "Court Rejects Law Restricting Access to Prescribing Data" @default.
• W2051205768 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.46.16.psychnews_46_16_12_1" @default.
• W2051205768 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2051205768 type Work @default.
• W2051205768 sameAs 2051205768 @default.
• W2051205768 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2051205768 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2051205768 hasAuthorship W2051205768A5031679452 @default.
• W2051205768 hasBestOaLocation W20512057681 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C110346835 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C136576888 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C2426938 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C50688660 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C61192294 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConcept C98274493 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C110346835 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C126322002 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C136576888 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C139621336 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C144133560 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C17744445 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C199539241 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C2426938 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C2778272461 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C50688660 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C61192294 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C71924100 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C87501996 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C98184364 @default.
• W2051205768 hasConceptScore W2051205768C98274493 @default.
• W2051205768 hasIssue "16" @default.
• W2051205768 hasLocation W20512057681 @default.
• W2051205768 hasOpenAccess W2051205768 @default.
• W2051205768 hasPrimaryLocation W20512057681 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W1990594316 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W2264003265 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W2516855051 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W2610484176 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W2809595885 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W286435846 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W3123398386 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W3126053202 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W3154257317 @default.
• W2051205768 hasRelatedWork W68338174 @default.
• W2051205768 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W2051205768 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2051205768 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2051205768 magId "2051205768" @default.
• W2051205768 workType "article" @default.