Prescription Privacy: Federal Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Limiting Use of Prescription Data in Pharmaceutical Marketing - IMS Health, Inc. V. Ayotte1

By Strumolo, Adaline R. | American Journal of Law & Medicine, October 1, 2007 | Go to article overview

Prescription Privacy: Federal Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Limiting Use of Prescription Data in Pharmaceutical Marketing - IMS Health, Inc. V. Ayotte1


Strumolo, Adaline R., American Journal of Law & Medicine


The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire recently held that a state law restricting the license, transfer, use, or sale of prescription data is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it regulates constitutionally-protected, commercial speech without directly serving a substantial State interest.2 The Prescription Information Law,3 enacted by the New Hampshire Legislature in 2006, prohibits pharmacies and other similar entities from transmitting or using prescription records containing patient-identifiable or prescriber-identifiable information for commercial purposes.4 The statute defines "commercial purpose" to include advertising, marketing, and "any activity that could be used to influence sales or market share of a pharmaceutical product."5

This prohibition directly impacts the "data-mining" business. Data-mining companies purchase prescription data from pharmacies, match it with detailed information about individual prescribers, and sell the resulting prescriber "profiles" to interested parties. Their revenue derives nearly exclusively from sales to pharmaceutical companies which use the prescriber profiles to tailor their drug marketing efforts to individual physicians. In 2006, two leading data-mining companies, IMS Health, Inc. and Verispan, L.L.C., sued the State of New Hampshire challenging the constitutionality of the statute and seeking declaratory judgment to bar its enforcement. The plaintiffs claimed the law impermissibly restricted their right to free speech under the First Amendment. The court agreed.

In its opinion, the court first detailed the ways in which the use of prescriher-identifiable prescription data facilitates pharmaceutical marketing. The court then discussed the language of the New Hampshire statute and the legislative history establishing the State's purpose in passing the bill: to protect patient and physician privacy and to contain health care costs. The court subjected the statute to intermediate scrutiny by analyzing the nexus between the legislation and this asserted purpose. The defendant, the Attorney General of New Hampshire, bore the burden of proof in seeking to uphold the statute; therefore, the court structured its opinion around her arguments, rejecting each.

As an initial matter, the court discarded the Attorney General's contention that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, reasoning that the plaintiffs could be prosecuted for their resale of prescriber-identifiable information as "other similar entities" or conspirators under the Prescription Information Law, and, in any case, suffered sufficient economic injury from the law to procure standing.6

Substantively, the Attorney General first argued that the law does not regulate speech and is not, therefore, in violation of the First Amendment. She contended that prescription data constitutes "factual information" rather than speech, and that, even if it does constitute speech, a law that restricts its use and not its disclosure does not regulate speech for the purposes of the First Amendment. The court held that the Prescription Information Law does not escape First Amendment review "merely because it targets factual information rather than viewpoints, beliefs, emotions, or other types of expression."7 The court stated that "transfer" of prescription information is a form of disclosure, and that the statute's prohibition on the transfer and use of prescription data directly regulates speech.8 Furthermore, the court noted that laws that only indirectly regulate speech may nonetheless be subject to the First Amendment when they "affect . . . the speaker's ability to communicate with his intended audience."9

The Attorney General next argued that, even if the law regulates speech, it survives intermediate scrutiny because it directly serves substantial State interests. The court applied intermediate scrutiny, following the rule for commercial speech restrictions in the First Circuit and rejecting the plaintiffs' contention that the restricted prescription information falls outside the definition of commercial speech, thereby requiring strict scrutiny of the statute. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Prescription Privacy: Federal Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Limiting Use of Prescription Data in Pharmaceutical Marketing - IMS Health, Inc. V. Ayotte1
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.