Free Speech but only in the interest of the Goverment.
This is exactly what the NLARX has stated in their press release about the filing of the “Friend of the Court Brief” for the IMS versus Vermont Case: That the law “serves substantial governmental interests”.
The Vermont law S. 115 restricts the sale of prescription drug information that identifies prescribers and patients; services like IMS, Versipan and Walters Kluwer, Health sell this information to manufactures to assist in targeted marketing. The Vermont Law is a similar law to one struck down earlier this year by the First Circuit Court in Boston. The law has been temporarily repealed until 2011 or until the courts decide on the constitutionality of the law (for more information).The date for the court hearing is July 28th in Brattleboro, VT.
On Monday, June 23rd several organizations sent in their “Amicus” Friend of the Court Briefs including the Coalition for Healthcare Communications.
In the Coalition Brief they point out “that Vermont cannot ban one class of speakers from the marketplace of ideas and information while at the same time allowing other speakers without violating the First Amendment.” That this bill was hastily put together to undermine the courts’ decision in the New Hampshire Case.
They also point out that this information is used for research and to develop information regarding the safe uses of drugs and serves the public interest.
The statue if not overturned, government will resort to tactics used here to restrict the data and communication of other commercial speakers.
“If the Government is capable of violated free speech by selectively releasing its own data, surely it violates free speech by regulating the manner in which third parties release theirs.”
In the brief created by NLARX and Community Catalyst, they use language like societal justifications (code for if they market drugs and devices governments spend more money), and governmental interests (code for saving money). They go on to describe marketing practices that “promote irrational drug selection” (code for branded drugs versus cheep generics).
It is interesting to note that government is always looking to save money and not necessarily in the best interest of patients. The groups that will be most affected by these types of legislation are those who live in rural areas like Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (which passed these laws) who’s physicians are least likely to learn of new and more effective medications without access to industry.
The courts have been right in their protecting the first amendment, it is in everyone’s interest for as much information on medical therapies to get into the hands of physicians and patients. The competition of ideas about what is best for patients in fought on a level playing field, and is more important than the governmental interest of saving dollars. Our patients deserve more informed healthcare professionals not those who have only been spoon fed what the government thinks is important for us to know.