Supreme Court strikes down Vermont’s prescription privacy law

[woo me with science]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/06/24/supreme_court_strike_down_vt_prescription_records_law/

Justices bar Vermont’s prescription privacy law
May endanger similar Mass. legislation
By Tracy Jan
Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court yesterday struck down a Vermont law barring the sale of prescription drug records for marketing purposes, potentially derailing an effort by Massachusetts lawmakers to enact a similar patient privacy law.

The court, in a 6-to-3 ruling, said Vermont violated the free speech rights of drug manufacturers by forbidding pharmacies from selling doctors’ prescription information to them yet allowing the data to be sold for other purposes, such as research.

The ruling was a victory for pharmaceutical companies, which buy the data to uncover prescription patterns so they can better market their drugs to doctors. But it dampens the hope of physician groups, consumer health advocacy organizations, and some Massachusetts legislators of passing the state’s own prescription privacy bill.

“I’m not so sure that a Massachusetts law would have much viability now,’’ said Dr. Lynda Young, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. “We consider the sale of prescription data commercial activity, not free speech. It is an intrusion into the physician-patient relationship.’’

....
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing on behalf of Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the Vermont statute is a lawful effort to regulate a commercial enterprise and it meets the First Amendment standard the court has previously applied when the government sought to regulate commercial speech.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I agree with the Dissenters.

You don't surrender your right to privacy at the pharmacy. You have a valid expectation of privacy as a pharmacy is an extension of your physician's office. You wouldn't expect your physician to sell your medical records or prescription squibs to pharmaceutical companies. Plus, while in general going to a commercial business is discretionary on a superficial level, essentially you visit a pharmacy under duress, in treatment of an acute or a chronic medical condition, without another alternative to seek relief. Your personal treatment history is necessary and compulsory in order to procure medicine and shouldn't be available as a marketable commodity.

[azul]

9. I think the individual patient info is not released.

Just what drugs and what quantity a particular doctor is prescribing over time. The reps used to quiz pharmacists about which MD's were prescribing their products, but I guess that they just buy this info from chain pharmacies and wholesalers now if they can get away with it.

[fasttense]

2. I wonder if other justices are following Thomas' example

and are accepting bribes, I mean gifts? Really, can you trust any of the justices to be fair and impartial when we know at least 2 of them are taking bribes, I mean gifts?

They are a joke. And people act as if Supreme Court decisions are actually based on law and precedent. These decisions are based on nothing more than whims and bribes.

[malaise]

3. Is it fascism yet?

The corporations are running America.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Wilms]

5. Will the records be posted on the web?

If so, we might get to see which doctor's serve as dealers for particular drugs.

[digitaln3rd]

6. Yet another reason why lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court are stupid.

Can we impeach them, yet?

[Lasher]

7. Again with the corporate personhood.

Brought to you by the rightwing partisan SCOTUS.

[azul]

8. Wow. This court is on a roll.

Looks like on the corporate pay roll. This corporate free speech stuff is BS and they know it.

What, can a pharmacy now sell a doctor's prescribing habits to incorporated attorneys looking for malpractice business? Or the pharmacy sell this info to tabloids?

[Johonny]

10. The Bush legacy in action

[nichomachus]

11. I can't see what twisted logic defends this

On the basis of the free speech rights of the drug manufacturers. But, then, when you have a Supreme Court that's open to being bribed by corporations, anything is possible.