June 29, 2011

Law Limiting Sale of Customer Prescription Data Overturned by Supreme Court - Sorrell v. IMS Health

Share |

The U.S. Supreme Court examined a Vermont law that limited the use of patient information collected by pharmacies to determine whether or not 18 V.S.A. § 4631 violated pharmacies' First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court held that the Vermont law did place unnecessary limits on the speech of pharmaceutical companies and had failed to justify these limits within the law itself. Therefore, the Court found Vermont's Confidentiality of Prescription Information statute to be unconstitutional as it currently stands in Sorrell v. IMS Health, No. 10-779.

Medical%20Recs%201.jpgThe Vermont law at issue, 18 V.S.A. § 4631, sought to limit pharmacies from selling their client's demographic information to pharmaceutical companies. Basically, whenever a patient fills a prescription at a pharmacy, information on that patient is generated. The pharmacy then sells that information to "data miners," who compile the data into coherent reports, which are then sold to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The drug companies then use this data for "detailing", a process through which they promote their medications to doctors in the hopes of increasing the sale and use of their drug.

The goal of §4631 was to limit the practice of detailing by eliminating the role of the data miners; under the law, pharmacies were no longer able to sell patients' information to data miners. The law sought to limit the commercial use of patient information and its sale to pharmaceutical companies. However, it did allow this information to be used in other ways, e.g., for medical research purposes. In fact, it was this arbitrary divide of what was allowed and what was not that led to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sorrell.

Continue reading "Law Limiting Sale of Customer Prescription Data Overturned by Supreme Court - Sorrell v. IMS Health" »

July 2, 2008

District of Columbia v. Heller: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms

Share |

On June 26, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment and its protection of an individual's right to possess firearms.

230024_m92f%20gun.jpgD.C. law bans handgun possession by making it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibits registration of handguns. It also states that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but police are allowed to issue 1-year licenses. Residents who lawfully own firearms must keep them unloaded and disassembled, or bound by trigger lock or similar device.

The case was brought by Heller, a local policeman who was denied a license to keep his handgun at home. He hoped to enjoin the city from continuing its bar on handgun registration which prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home and also from its trigger lock requirement prohibiting the use of functional firearms in the home.

The ink on the opinion was not dry before Second Amendment groups filed suit in the federal court in Chicago challenging the city's handgun ban. Lawsuit challenges to the local ordinances of other city gun bans are planned or filed for Evanston, Oak Park, Wilmette and others.

Continue reading "District of Columbia v. Heller: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms" »